Debates and Discussions

These debates acuminate my own thoughts on various political and social issues. In 2011, this year has caused a lot of debates in my life. I like debates and this shows my thinking and others. So, again, my name is Timothy these debaters are very controversial.

from VA and here are these debates. Some of

CaptainRight wrote: Right. So you agree it's ok for the government to rob from one person to give to another. It's right for the government to use taxes to build up our infrastructure as found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. That's not robbery, that's a part of the law. The tax system should be fair, but fair taxation isn't robbery. You reactionaries always try to use slick language, but real Patriots are on to your game and linguistic gymnastics. Real robberies are some corporations paying 0 taxes, corporate interests polluting the environment & promoting corporate corruption, war crimes, and another robbery is a system that violates our civil liberties too (including the excesses of economic globalization plus the banker bailouts). -Timothy

see the light wrote: Everyone pays taxes of all kinds. Poor and middle class get a tax refund-which is usually more than they put in. It's really called Welfare. It is the so-called rich people who are paying the most but, you want them to pay more? You Liberals want to spend other people's money but won't contribute your own. The poor pay tons of taxes, but not lots of federal income taxes. The reason is that the poor dont make enough to owe income taxes. Yet, the poor pay plenty of other taxes like federal payroll taxes, gas taxes, sales, utility taxes, and other taxes. No one is tax free in America if they work. In state and local taxes, the poor bear a heavier burden than the rich in every state except Vermont. Its true that the top 1 percent of wage earners paid 38 percent of the federal income taxes in 2008 (the most recent year for which data is available). But people forget that the income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government. Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners. Thats because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800. The wealthy are paying record local tax in over 50 years. Thats a fact. So, the numbers are there, the truth will prevail, and reactionary rhetoric will die in the end. Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007. You omit a lot of things. You omit that some rich folks pay no income taxes, some rich have tax loopholes, and the disparity between the rich and the poor have radically widen in the past decades. The concentration of wealth is heavily in the hands of the super rich. The poor and the middle class have contributed greatly to this nation. They have shed blood sometimes at the expense of degenerate, hypocritical, and nefarious lifestyles of many of the rich folks. Also, using taxation to fund services is a part of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that gives Congress the precise right to tax people. I'm not a liberal. I'm independent. I'm more progressive on economic issues though. -By Timothy

Mr Zaius wrote: <quoted text> You are confusing crony capitalism with true free market principles. That is why politically connected corperations like GE do not pay a dime in federal taxes yet their CEO's hold positions in President Obama's administration. That is why Warren Buffet and his corporation owes almost a billion dollars in back taxes accumulated over the last decade, is fighting the IRS in court tooth and nail, yet he is the head cheerleader for the

administration to punish his competitors with higher tax rates. President Obama is indeed a socialist. His rhetoric is no different from every other third world tin pot dictator with delusions of grandeur. <quoted text> You need to learn the difference between a political speech and words on paper looking for a signature. <quoted text> You actually are quite the whiner. I can only imagine what will happen when someone tries to fire you for incompetence in the future. So, you oppose crony capitalism. That is a first. I don't agree with it as well. The truth is that crony capitalism doesn't work as you have proven. Yet, we have record economic disparities here, failed trade deals, failed tricked down economics, and record low taxation among the super rich class. Economists from across the political spectrum have mentioned that we need to do more than just tax cuts in order to solve our financial issues. We have to create jobs first and then use actions to massively lower our deficit & debt in American society. President Barack Obama isn't a socialist since he doesn't fit the definition of a real socialist. He agrees with private corporations (beyond just crony capitalism), private organizations, and private services. A true socialist won't agree with almost anything private involving itself in the economy. He is more conservative than some conservative politicians in Europe. Comparing his words to a third world dictator is a silly ad hominem attack. You can disagree with the man on political grounds, but some of your allies have taken criticism into the realm of just hatred. Calling for collective bargaining, labor rights, and a jobs plan aren't equated to the words of some authoritarian 3rd world ruler at all. I already know a difference between a speech and signature on a law. You need to know the difference between true socialism and what Obama promotes. I'm not a whiner. I promote free speech, justice, and realism. You just falsely equate any black man striving to fight against reactionary lies as whining. I don't have incompetence. That's a part of your delusion.

-By Timothy

Mr Zaius wrote: It works well for the people that are connected and it works well for the unethical politician that has their campaign coffers filled with filthy money. Lets all wonder how a president, with an approval rating in the 30% range, manages to raise a billion dollars for his 2012 propaganda campaign

Do you understand that the fourth branch of government, the regulatory branch, composed of an alphabet soup of bureaucrats, are the reason the economy is stalled and we are entering another recession? Socialism is not something you can just bring to the United States over night. It is an incremental process. Obama aims to make America into a workers' paradise, a land where government czars tell Wall Street tycoons how much they can make and where the feds take large ownership positions in companies like General Motors and insurance giant American International Group (AIG). This is fact. The government has already used its ownership stake to impose sweeping mandates and regulations on the companies, such as closing hundreds of dealerships. Such as? Third world dictators tell people when they have made enough money. Folks are actually saying, "I have never seen a President stoop this low[Obama is] a pyromaniac in a field of straw men. Such as the crashtheteaparty.com folks? If you say so. Tons of people realize the flawed logic and the debilitating composition of crony capitalism. Big money raising has been done by both parties. The President isnt the first nor the last to utilize massive money in order to generate revenue for a political campaign. Yet, one thing ironic is that the President compromised with the Republican in the debt ceiling, the tax cuts for the wealthy, and other policies, and these compromises havent radically improve our economy at all. I comprehend about these agencies and some of these agencies are cited in the Constitution. The rest are legally created later on by Congressional legal procedures. The economy stalled because of numerous reasons. Many big banks are hoarding wealth, no real comprehensive economic solutions are transpiring here, the war on terror is draining our domestic resources here, and there are other reasons existing on why our economy has stalled in the USA. People dont need an abusive amount of bureaucrats, but I have no problem with pristine resources to help the poor and other methods that can improve our financial state. So, you admit that we in the USA arent living in an explicitly socialistic state. W e dont since we have strong private corporations and private industries. We know that Barack Obama hasnt publicly said that he wants the state to control all of the means of production, so to me he isnt a socialist at all. I dont agree with czars since we can handle our affairs without them. The FED did these policies since we have had a huge recession years ago. I dont agree with the government controlling all financial organizations. Yet, if people are starving to death, then helping people under the general welfare clause is fine with me. Regulations are trickly. Some regulations are bad and some regulations are good. W e have to preserve legitimate regulations that protect our environment, promote safety, and prevent crony capitalism. We can eliminate any abusive regulations. There are Progressive Conservatives in Canada that has similar views as Barack Obama or views more left than he is. Cameron is just like Obama on foreign policy matters not on domestic issues though. Third W orld dictators make pronouncements beyond just money, but they speak in favor of oppression, anti-civil liberty policies, and some even promote genocide. I dont see Obama using rhetoric as equated to all of the rhetoric from 3rd world dictators at all. This hatred by some reactionaires are expressed in this link: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-an...

''He has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity.'' Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), ''[An] Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug.'' Mark Williams, national spokesman for the Tea Party Express, on President Obama -By Timothy

Kashta_Bureh wrote: Article I, Section 8.......of what document? I've read the Constitution, and I don't recall it mentioning the Federal Government being responsible for building roads and infrastructure, I thought that was the job of the STATE and LOCAL governments. Americans already pay state and local taxes and these taxes go towards the construction of roads, bridges, and stuff like that. W elfare and these other social programs have nothing to do with that. State and local governments can raise plenty of money through sales tax, property tax, etc. Yes, it does mention that Congress has the power to do it nationally or federally to put it in context. Even the state and local government need federal assistance in extreme circumstance (not in every instance obviously). Even if you exclude the Article, the elastic clause allows Congress to pass new laws when it's needed. Theoretically, Congress can pass more laws anyway. Article 1, Section 8 mentions the following words:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; [b]To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;[/b] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings

and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. To post roads, to promote the arts and sciences, to promote the general welfare of the people, to promote the elastic clause, and to promote a post office=infrastructure. -By Timothy

___

This is the discussion that Ive had with a great Filipino Christian person:

My Words are in bold. This is a discussion that I have made in January of 2012 during Dr. Martin Luther Kings holiday. This discussion present my present ideals on various topics.

IM Jan 16 7:11 PM t (Jan 16 7:11 PM): truthseeker t (Jan 16 7:12 PM): any new pinto films? t appears to be offline.

truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:13 PM): ONe is a video on the history of the Bible. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:13 PM): The link is found in http://www.adullamfilms.com/TheUntoldHistoryoftheBible.html t (Jan 16 7:15 PM): is it simply lamp in the dark? truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:16 PM): Yes. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:18 PM): Today is Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday in America. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:19 PM): So, it's a national holiday. t (Jan 16 7:21 PM): mr crowley song by ozzy truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:22 PM): That's an old song.

truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:22 PM): Many musicians love the philosophy of Aleister Crowley. t (Jan 16 7:26 PM): what led mtv to be a sex type of music video? t (Jan 16 7:26 PM): have you watched hells bells 2? truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:27 PM): No, I haven't watched that video. t (Jan 16 7:27 PM): mtv sex crazed music video? truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:27 PM): MTV shown controversial videos, because they are very much secular humanist from the beginning. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:28 PM): They've shown the most controversial videos from the 1990's and now they show more controversial TV shows or awards shows. t (Jan 16 7:28 PM): do you think mitt romney will be the primary t (Jan 16 7:28 PM): can he be possibly dethrone obama? truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:28 PM): I don't know. One thing is true. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:28 PM): Mitt Romney is supported by the Republican establishment. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:28 PM): President Barack Obama is still a strong political figure. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:29 PM): He's a centrist man that is right on some things and wrong on other issues. t (Jan 16 7:29 PM): does he have a chance against obama? truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:29 PM): Romney is a MA moderate trying to act like he's a conservative for the past 4 years. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:29 PM): He's not moderate on economics. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:29 PM): He's just as reactionary as Wall Street in terms of his views on the economy. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:30 PM): Romney is trying to criticize Barack Obama from a Republican standpoint. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:31 PM): The President isn't to be blamed for all of our issues, but the President shouldn't issue drone attacks on a sovereign nation. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:31 PM): The President seems to want to compromise on many issues, while the Republicans refuse to compromise. Therefore, tensions come about. t (Jan 16 7:32 PM): i think obama is trying to give america to the muslim influence.

truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:32 PM): Romney against Obama will be a close election. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:32 PM): What do you mean the Muslim influence? truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:32 PM): In America, we have the First Amendment where a man has the right to believe in whatever creed they want. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:33 PM): No Muslim should be treated as a second class citizen. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:33 PM): The vast majority of Muslim human beings aren't trying to kill us, to harm, or to desire some theocratic state at all. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:35 PM): The President just says that I want Muslims and Jewish people in the Middle East to have peace and equal human rights. There is nothing wrong with that. t (Jan 16 7:35 PM): true islam means smiting the head of its infidels truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:35 PM): I don't agree with Islam, but I don't hate Muslims. t (Jan 16 7:36 PM): those arabs are the ones that do not want peace truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:36 PM): Also, radical Islamists use a misinterpretation of texts in order to justify extremism. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:36 PM): There are many Arabic Christians in the world. t (Jan 16 7:36 PM): iran, like the others wanted jews erased truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:36 PM): So, Arabic peoples are our brothers like the Jewish people. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:36 PM): Iran isn't an Arabic nation. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:36 PM): Iranians are Indo-European. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:36 PM): The leader of Iran didn't say that at all. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:37 PM): He said people should decide the fate of Israel. t (Jan 16 7:37 PM): how bout the nuclear warheads truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:37 PM): Mose Dayan even doesn't want a war in Iran. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:37 PM): he's an Israeli military leader. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:37 PM): there are no nuclear warheads in Iran. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:37 PM): Iran isn't Iraq since Iran has a navy, army, air force, and thousands of troops.

truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:38 PM): America shouldn't be wasting its resources when we need to rebuild our economy. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:39 PM): Also, there are many Arabic people and Jewish people in peace groups that desire real peace in the Middle Eastern region. t (Jan 16 7:39 PM): do you think assad will meet violent end? truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:40 PM): Assad is the leader of Syria. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:40 PM): The people of Syria should handle that situation. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:40 PM): In my personal opinion, the people should try Assad with corruption and he should be jailed for his tyranny. Yet, the people ought to do that not U.S. troops or NGO forces. t (Jan 16 7:41 PM): is obama slowly becoming dictator? truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:41 PM): I don't agree with him on civil liberty issues. truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:42 PM): I don't agree with him on the Patriot Act, the NDAA, NSA wiretapping, etc.

t (Jan 16 7:42 PM): is it true that there are detentions, civilian arrests? truthseeker2436577 (Jan 16 7:43 PM): There has been illegal detentions during the Obama years. The NDAA has detentions while Obama supporters claim that the NDAA detentions dont apply to US citizens. The ACLU still has reservations about the NDAA law still.

This is the old Discussion. My words are in bold. hello Me: hello t: i try to apply in our US embassy since im an american studies major Me: Why so? t: hopefully i can say to the hr what i learned from you

america is awesome i wonder foreigners made their names in the US Me: What does hr mean? t: human resource Me: America has a lot of freedom, but the materialism here is out of control. Even in the rural areas, it's abundant. t: i love the dow jobes history

do u like julius caesar is he great hopefully ill be like him great leader Me: ha aha JUlius Caesar was a great dictator. He was an imperialist that harmed the Celts in Gaul and other places in Europe. You do know this right. t: iknew he defeated vercingetorix Me: The Celts wanted their freedom absent Roman imperialism. Vercingetorix was captured and exploited by Julius Caesar's forces. t: they just get squashed Me: He ended the Roman Republic. officially t: so thats the reason of his murder is caesar also lustful? Me: He was murdered for numerous reasons. The Senators were jealous of his power being in an authoritarian fashion. So, they decided to assassinate him. t: they should talk to him first through diplomacy than murder him\ Me: They should at a bare minimum have a trial than just kill him. Yes

t: but you think caesar is all about himself even \diplomacy and peaceful means cant convince him? Me: I think the Caesar concept is a distortion of a true free society. That concept is based in authoritianism and unjustified control over the common people. The Caesar is a fascist wanting unitary power that restricts power given unto the people. The government is by and for the people as Lincoln said. t: rome tht time is chaotic Me: Yes t: so caesar has no choice but to calm the people Me: I disagree with you on that since alternatives are certainly necessary to solve the tramatic time. t: so there are still other choices than caesarism>? Me: Yes A Republic. Me: Yes t: whats the source of roman's violence? bec of pagan religion Me: Rome had violence because of political disagreements among their many

factions. this is similar to the Civil War that we had in the USA. t: whats your take if you want a solution? Me: A solution would be radical reforms in the ancient Roman world and a revitization of the Republican form of government. t: america does hate dictators thats why you defeated the british Me: Yes We hate tyranny. t: so america defeated the british courtesy of benjamin's diplomacy in france for support? Me: Not exactly. America relied on French support. Also, similar to Vietnam, the British were extend thousands of miles of resources. The Americans knew their own territory better than the British to defeat them in guerilla warfare tactics. t: so i cannot say it is by france's help you toppled cornwallis Me: The US did have France's help though. That is true t: hope china became a superpower Me: Why so? t: bec they are rising economically and Me: China should reform its religious and political liberty policies.

t: their influence are becoming bigger Me: Then, I will very happy. t: market factor cultural factor Me: We should wish the best for China since China is apart of the human family. t: olympics Me: China has great blessings. t: america will be over as a superpower Me: Nothing is set in stone. Once people said that America would be defeated by the British. That didn't occur. So, in 3-4 decades, America could radically improve its economic state.

see the light wrote: What about all the tax payers who are being charged for illegals from MEXICO-BRINGING THEIR KIDS FOR FREE EDUCATION, FOOD STAMPS,MEDICAL BILLS AND ALL THE OTHER WELFARE PROGRAMS. Being in Texas that's all you see. This is what I hear in Texas is a lot of hostility from some people toward illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration is morally wrong. Everyone knows that. The solution is either between 2 major paths in my opinion. Either we form the approach of deporting every single illegal immigrant from America and cut all taxpayer resources sent to them. The other path is a reform system that deals with border enforcement, develop ways to better protect our borders, and have illegal immigrants who are here to compensate for their actions (and if they desire to be citizens, they need to pay a fine, get at the back of

the line, face real punishments, and then apply for citizenship). Yet, I don't agree with punishing a child born from an illegal immigrant if that child is born in America. I don't believe in punishing a child like that like Huckabee said. Neither do I believe in revising the 14th Amendment to promote anti-immigrant rhetoric. There is an increased deportation rate in America under Obama. That's a reality, yet you are right that it's wrong to arbitrarily give out cash and welfare to illegal immigrants. They shouldn't get any resources unless in exceptional cases (like emergencies or things of that nature) since human compassion is human compassion. Many illegal immigrants don't have malice intent (even though illegal immigration is still wrong); they just believe that they want to enrich the lives of their families. This issue is complicated and a one size fit all solution isn't go to cut, because if you say immediately deport all illegal immigrants, and then you will have serious problems in this country. Also, I do believe in immediately deporting any illegal immigrant convicted of felonies though. I see where you are coming from though. -By Timothy

This line right here shows what you are all about. Perhaps you care to explain why it is your business what folks do with the profits they 'earn' from working? Are you also angry that NBA stars and rappers are 'hoarding' the money they have earned as well? Do you believe the federal government owns all wealth and allows private citizens to borrow it? I really love when you go into the rant about how the 'rich' are not paying a 'fair share'. Here is reality. http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-tax... The top top 25% of earners contribute 86.34% of the tax money that makes this nation go

around. The bottom 50% of earners contribute less than 2%. Probably closer to 0% in 2011. You need to admit that you hate capitalism and the free market system and feel that you deserve to take what you want from whomever has it and divide it up however you see fit and 'fair', comrade. -Zaius

My Response to Zaius: To Zaius: Nice false perceptions, but it doesn't work on me. I don't hate fair markets. I don't agree with the extremes of Communism nor crony capitalism. You love how I use slick terminology. That is my M.O. You know what's I'm about. I'm just in support of economic justice and exposing corproate corruption. I'm about truth and the non-scapegoating of the poor. I'm about living my life and rejecting the Left/Right Paradigm. I'm about going foward in my livelihood without trying to brainwash individuals into joining the reactionary "Let's blame the poor and be a lover of austerity" parade. You have the right to join the celebration in that parade as it represents your dogma. I have right to join another parade of social justice and love for real freedom. Now, the rest of your statements are interesting. It is my business to investigate cash flow. The reason is that we are citizens and we have every right to see how are taxpayer dollars are being used. We have the right to use policies to prevent tax breaks or any other shady deals. A man legitimately earning wealth is fine. Yet, not every business is made up of straight arrow folks. History proves that legitimate regulation of business practices (not overbearing regulation) can have a stabilizing effect to prevent corruption. We have no right to steal wealth, but we have the right to prevent corruption when dealing with economic issues. Are you angry that corporate CEOs ship jobs overseas, while workers starve at home? Are you angry that international corporations have record profits while record economic inequality exist worldwide (not only in America)? Are are you angry at some corporations promoting ecological disasters and labor plus human rights violations? See, the rappers and the NBA stars can't create wars on continents, they can't increase unemployment in a radical fashion, and they can't cause widespread ecological disasters like you know who can? W e know who they are. NBA stars and the rappers should pay their fair share of taxes too. With much wealth comes great responsibility. I don't believe that the federal government should own all of the wealth in the world. I am not a socialist. I do believe that the federal government can tax citizens and develop infrastructure as cited in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Borrowing wealth is a problem, but in the short term, we should create jobs for people first. Then, we can handle the debt and deficit issue more thoroughly. Cutting debt radically now won't equate into reasonable job creation. I love my rants too. There are other sites that I can show and other studies that refute your claim that the super rich are some boy scouts acting in a scouts honor type of way. The reality is that income taxes aren't all taxes and they aren't even apart of all total taxes in the federal government. Here's another source from http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/04/20/1... :

"...W hile the richest one percent of Americans do pay about 40 percent of the total federal income taxes paid in the country, thats a far cry from 40 percent of overall taxes. Even those working Americans who dont make enough money to have federal income tax liability pay federal payroll and excise taxes, which fall much harder on the middle-class and low-income individuals than those at the upper end of the income scale. Once all taxes are taken into account, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the richest one percent of Americans pay about 28 percent of total federal taxes, which is right in line with their 25 percent share of total income. And therein lies the real story: the richest one percent of Americans pay such a large share of federal income taxes because they make such a large share of the overall income..." -By Timothy

oh _ ReaIIy wrote: Yeah, of getting oppressed by people they claim their skin color makes them "superior" to....lol! You mean black people overcoming obstacles, fighting for liberty, and believing in justice makes us blacks inferior to no one. It makes black people just as human as anyone else. Also, having beautiful dark skin color is great and is a blessing from God. We don't bow to the market like you do. We don't bow to the Tea Party like you people do. -By Timothy

Kashta_Bureh wrote: <quoted text> Timothy, Blacks worldwide are in a war........and we are losing. One of the reasons why we're losing is because our men and women can't stay married. Over 70% of the women in my family are divorced. We've all seen the stats on the number of Black women who are single, who have kids out of wedlock, etc. No community can survive without strong families. The Bible says that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Black American women as a group choose to be divided, they refuse to get with real Black men because real Black men, like all real men on

Earth, DEMAND submission, and will not accept anything less. Therefore, Black women get with these immature thugs because they fear real Black men and don't want to submit to them, primarily because they've been brainwashed since slavery not to. LOL, Black American women don't want to unify with us Tim. If they did the divorce rates wouldn't be so high. You can't build a power base with these women, that can only be achieved with submissive women who are willing to follow their men and do what they're told. Its just like the military, when your commanding officer gives you an order, you follow it. Black American women have trouble following orders. Foreign Black women do not. We are in a war and one of our enemies is white supremacy not our sisters. The sisters in America (and throughout the world) were with us in Jim Crow, fighting against lynching, fighting with us defending our image like Jill Scott & Angie Scott, fighting against police brutality even now, and fighting for us in the Jena Six scandals. So, yes, AAW are our allies in this fight. We have made errors like the high numbers of divorce and other issues. That is why we should still fight and still unite. The Divorce rate being high is cause for numerous reasons like socioeconomic factors, disputes, etc. If BW wouldnt really want to unite with us BM for real, our population growth rate would be much lower than it is now. I agree with you that we need strong families and that a man needs to be a man. Is a real man the dictator, the thug, the deceiver, or the upright individual seeking change with confidence plus honor? I choose the later. Therefore, if we want to fight, then yes we stand up for ourselves and not let any female control us. Yet, we should activate our common sense to respect females with love and concern. We stand be strong and be great leaders in our own communities without oppressing sisters. A real black woman is never afraid of a real black man. White supremacists and ignorant House Negroes will always be afraid of a real Black Man period. The House is burning, but that doesnt mean we should not put it out. We should put the fire out; rebuild our relations among both genders, etc. Programs can be used to help stop out of wedlock birth, marriage problems, and other issues inflicting our communities. We can fight back. Also, tons of sisters wont go near a thug. Not all Black Women are monolithic. We can do this with discussions, reconciliation, and a renewed focus. We can do it with strength, faith, and courage. We men should be courageous to stand. Ive seen Black American women all of the time giving me advice, concern, respect, and love (beyond my relatives like the very sweet black sister Ms. Winn), so AAW are our allies here not our adversaries. -By Timothy

Yes, I am a white man. Now, I want you to know that some of the nicest women I know are black. But, there is no doubt in my mind, based on experience, that the AVERAGE BW is just not friendly. In fact the average BW is downright hostile towards everybody. But see, here's the interesting fact about it. I always thought BW were rude and obnoxious because I am a white man. The fact is, they are like that with blacks to. And don't give me any baloney about WW being just as bad. WW can't hold a candle to BW when it comes to rude and obnoxiouos behaviour. -a man

I am a black man, Here is my response to you. We agree that some of the nicest women in the world are black. We agree. From my experience, I've been treated with more respect from BW than WW. Also, I haven't seen the average BW act hostile toward everybody. You don't know the average BW anyway since you haven't encountered every BW in America or the world. There are millions of sisters worldwide. The average BW is just trying to handle their business. They didn't invent the slave trade, they didn't shoot an innocent girl in Detroit, they didn't create the war on terror, they didn't go up to promote slander against black people in the media, and they didn't create Drug War. So, the average Black Woman is nowhere near obnoxious as compared to the regular white supremacist system. Black women are Queens. Also, some WW have been partners in crimes in numerous degenerate acts in history far beyond anything that a sister can ever do. Also, I know a secret about some white women. Some WW may smile in your face publicly, but they are just as human as you and me. I've seen white women smile in people's faces and say disrespectful comments behind people's back. In the final analysis, a WW mostly promotes interests of her people. Therefore, we who are BM should promote the interests of our people without hating on sisters. There are folks with bad character in every race. In the end, no groups of people are superior to another. All human beings are created equal. So, for anyone to say or assume that WW are less obnoxious than BW is a pure lie since there are more WW than black women in America. Also, WW have been involved in domestic violence, assaults, gangs, yellings, and other acts. Gold digging is very obnoxious and we know who the biggest gold diggers in America are. They aren't sisters at all. Certain white folks try to use mind games in order to manipulate people. We should be above mind games and live our lives. This woman hating garbage is tripe and black sisters are great indeed. W e should be up on our toes and never yet anyone intimidate us. So, black unity is the way to go. Another secret is that some men falsely equate a black woman's strength with obnoxiousness or irrational, emotional behavior. Usually, the sister isn't being obnoxious. She is being real. See, a sister being strong and real is never some hindrance to manhood. It's an added benefit since a sister's strength can motivate real men to be strong too (and not adhere to stereotypical deceptions, but real power). A real man will always respect a strong woman since a woman sure of herself and really apt to oppose injustice is purely fine. Some folks want a sister to be docile, but I am a black man who wishes that my lover will not be docile. Therefore, sisters, don't be docile for anybody (not for me or anyone else). Sisters and brothers have the right to be real, to be strong, to speak out, and to express real soul.

-By Timothy

MrAnderson9 wrote: <quoted text> I complete understand what you're saying , but you all fail to realize is the new difference between good black women and good black men. Good black men speak out against other black men and any negativity directed towards black women, but good black women co sign bad black women and never speak out against the negative things these women spread around about black men, and it's poising the younger generation of black women and men. These "good" bw women like carribean and others are under the impression that bw can benifit from the propaganda that these irbw's spread, so they don't challenge it. And everyone knows this. Their ability to judge positivity from negativity is obviously still there, because whenever i create a thread pointing out the flaws of black women they all come running in calling it bashing, but when these bad bw create threads, these women are no where to be found. Then if you make one mad, they'll revert to the same one liners that the IRBW's use. I want the women to see the real benefit of their actions, it isn't winning them men over, it isn't making black men scared they're going to lose them, it isn't making non black men find them more desirable, it's making them all look like a bunch of G FOOLS!. This is an interesting discussion. If any man or woman goes out and cosigns any bad person (whether they are male or female) that person isnt good to begin with. A good person would both defend their honor and fight against inaccurate, harsh stereotypes against black

people of both genders plainly speaking. I dont see good black women co signing bad women since even in YouTube; black women have critiques about each other. The younger generation has problems, but this problem has nothing to do with real black culture. It has to do with the materialism and decadence ways of Western society not black people collectively. This decadence is a reflection of a white supremacist system. These Western society problems exist among many other ethnicities too not just blacks. I dont agree with any propaganda from IRBM or IRBW. I dont see evidence that Caribbean wants to benefit via the usage of propaganda from self haters who desire IR for insincere reasons. Flaws among some black women are known. Yet, these flaws dont make black women inferior. It makes them human just like us BM have flaws too. The issue is that some BM use flaws of some women as an excuse to go IR or blaming a majority of black women for their own issues. Using that tactic isnt about critiquing society, which is about cowardice. Its cowardice to just demonize black women collectively in our generation from a limited amount of our social experiences. There are millions of black women and they have diverse appearances, personalities, thinking, and social dispositions. A strong black woman will repeal a weak man. Yet, a real black man will love a strong black woman. Some of us brothers want a weak woman to dominate and control. I am a man, so I know how men think. Yet, we should be strong and desire strong women in order to create strong children (and continue to be a stronger people). With the issues black women deal with, I wouldnt blame them for being strong. We men must be strong and upright since so many of us have dropped the ball. A strong black woman shouldnt scare a man. It should inspire a man to be strong too in mental plus social fortitude to desire concrete reform inside of the black community. I dont care if non-blacks consider us desirable. Why should we be concern about what they (or non-blacks) think of us? We should be concerned about what we think about ourselves and be motivated to with promote our destiny, our dignity, and our interests for our people. Black Unity among BM and BW is better than running away to seek vanilla. By Timothy

jsteeten wrote: In this forum alone, there's a remarkable number of threads by blacks nervously discussing the "scourge" of illegal and legal immigration by Mexicans and other Hispanics. My general experience is that Hispanic immigrants are very hard-working, lawabiding and place great importance on the traditional family. Why would they present a threat to blacks? Why are so many AAs afraid of the presence of Hispanic immigrants in the US?

No real black is afraid of Hispanic people. We just don't have an extremely prejudice attitude about Hispanics like some other people have. We know the type of people with this extreme hatred of Hispanics and immigration in general (not just illegal immigration). I don't agree with illegal immigration morally, but immigration is a complex issue. Most black people don't want some knee jerk reaction to the immigration debate as an excuse to scapegoat an ethnicity that never mistreated us in the level of white supremacists. That's fundamentally the principle. Some bigots use immigration as an excuse to cause more divisions among blacks and Hispanic people when white supremacists (and pro-eugenicists) fund many antiimmigration movements here in America. Conspiracy Archive.com have documented the pro-eugenics ties of some of these anti-immigration groups. We aren't afraid of the social demographics of America changing. We blacks are mostly concerned with building up our own communities, growing up population growth, and believing real POWER for our people. It's easy to scapegoat Hispanics, but it's more realistic to not follow abhorrent distractions. It's vitally essential for my people to focus all of our efforts in growing and developing our own black community, loving our own black people, and living the life of fighting for authentic justice. Also, many Hispanic people have African blood. Some Hispanics (not all) are cousins to black people. I do not hate on my cousin for anybody. If immigration needs to be resolved here in America, it should be a comprehensive, rational solution without fear mongering. -By Timothy (Me)

tellitstr8 wrote: I am a professional black male. Not a bum, hoodlum, drug dealer, none of that. I refuse to deal with ANY black women. The all have either a "diva" mentality or at the very least, a false sense of entitlement. I exclusively date white women. Black women walk around thinking that they are queens. Queens of what? If you have dealt with, or are tired of, lazy black men then change your selection process. I have no problem looking down my nose at. ANY black woman. We don't owe the black woman ANYTHING. You black women purchase insane amounts of fake hair trying to look European, when it

comes naturally for the beautiful white woman. I have absolutely no respect, tolerance, or patience for ANY black woman. Black women deserve every bit of hardship and pain that they go through. Sorry you think like that. I can't exclusively white women since I love sisters too much. I like chocolate. Of course, I disagree with you on many levels. Black women are Queens for many reasons. One of the vital reasons is that they gave birth to us brothers and have been the greatest support system to us brothers. I haven't seen the white women, the Asian women, The Latina women, the Indian women, and all non-black women support the black man as the black woman has historically. It was the sisters or black women that constantly support BM in college, they were with us to oppose slavery, that fought with us valiantly against Jim Crow oppression, that worked with us in kindness and inspiration, and defended our cherish human rights (against police brutality, against torture, and against corporate corruption).

So, yes, we owe black women a hell of a lot. Of course, vindictive people exist in some black people. Yet, these types of people exist in every race. What should be our response to our troubles in life, brother? Should it be the refusal to have unity with sisters in order to fight against white supremacy? No. The answer is to look ourselves in the mirror, admit our errors, hold our head up high, stand up for ourselves, speak up with authority & power, stand up for sisters, and stand up for our people. We have the right to respond courageously against anyone that verbally or emotionally mistreats us. We have the right to defend the honor of black women and we have the right to continue to defend the truth of black liberation. Not all sisters are monolithic in their personalities or attributes, so to assume that all black women act like a diva or possess egoism is a lie. If a man has confidence, true grit, and a real character, he wouldn't have a problem going out with a real sister. The most strong gold diggers and folks with the diva complex in the West aren't sisters. We know who they are. I'm not giving in into sucking up to a white supremacist system. I will strive to improve myself and my life without blanket stereotypes against my people. There are plenty of black women that are kind, that are tolerant, and are intellectually mature to incorporate real, lasting relationships. There is nothing wrong with calling Black women Queens since a black woman has every right to stand up with her head held high and exist with strength like royalty. A real man has no issue with a real black woman being strong.

Many black women wear their hair natural, tons of black women respect their African features like the artist Erykah Badu including India Arie, and most black women are honorable folks. So, this old slander against BW is Uncle Tomish, it's cowardly, and it's nothing more than a white supremacist tactic in order to divide black unity. Black Unity, real solutions, and real cooperation are needed to fight back against the slander of BM and BW. By Timothy

Samoan Irish wrote:

LOL! listen carefully buddy you following a former MONK! who wanted to have incest relationship with a NUN! in fact if you look at the history of the Aglacan church again the ONLY way you could divorce your wife was through the church again EXCOMMUNICATED by the pope! This is when the great proseuction of catholics happened in England! in fact there we're MORE SAINTS IN ENGLAND THAN ANYWHERE IN HISTORY LOOK AT ENGLAND NOW! THE MAIN FAITH IN 10 YEARS TIME WILL BE MUSLIM! THE BIBLE IS A CATHOLIC BIBLE WHO PUT THE BIBLE TOGETHER? Don't u know that Luther wanted to destory the whole theory of purgatory he took out 4 books of the bible the book of Sirach due to it backed the theory we don't go straight to heaven! LOL! at maclom X is he number 8 cause I can tell you this man was anti white, was part of a nazi type angenda against whites and promoted the ideals of taking arms against the white man Now, I don't follow Luther unconditionally as I'm not a Lutheran or an Anglican. I'm an independent believer in God. I don't necessary believe your claims that Luther wanted incest with a nun. If he did wanted to achieve this action, then that's wrong of course. That's nothing compared to the degenerate histories of popes, nuns, priests, etc. spanning the centuries. Let's not go there. The Anglican Church in recent years wanted to unite with you Papists, so that's on them. Great persecution of Catholics in England? Lol. Only a couple of hundred Catholics died. I'm not approving of that, but thousands upon thousands of Huguenots died in France. Thousands of dissidents like the Waldensians, etc. died in Europe. Even hundreds of Protestants and Baptists died under the Catholic theocrat Bloody Mary over in the UK. As for the UK being Muslim, people will have to decide their own creed. The Bible isn't Catholic as it was created in B.C. The creation of the Bible ended in ca. 100 A.D. when no Pope existed (there were only bishops as Cyprian in the 3rd Century condemned the concept of a bishop of bishops). Also, Synods existed before Jerome's time that outlines the composition of the Bible texts. Even the OT was created before Catholicism. As for the Sirach, the Apocrypha has been condemned by the Jews, the Reformers, and others. These books support not only purgatory, but magic, suicide, and inaccurate historical events. The apocrypha was meant as tool for background information not to be made equivalent to the Bible. Purgatory existed from paganism (or people that view nature as God. This is something you refuse to understand). Mainstream religion is a tool that the establishment uses in trying to control the human mind & soul. It's as simple as that. Malcolm X wasn't anti-white per se. He said that many whites have a guilt complex and deny racism as an excuse to blame the victim of it (being blacks). By 1964 onward, Malcolm X wanted equality for all peoples (including whites), but he never omitted what white supremacists have done to his people. Malcolm X didn't advance taking arms against all whites. He said that he didn't believe in using arms indiscriminately against all whites. He said that black people have the right to use arms in self defense when it's necessary and legitimate. What is wrong with that?

Nothing. Malcolm X wasn't a part of a Nazi agenda as he said that if the Neo-Nazis harm blacks in the South (who are just trying to exercise their right to vote), and then he would use ultimate physical retaliation against them since he wasn't hand cupped by the philosophy of nonviolence. -By Timothy

Frank wrote: Definitely! But I don't wanna be stuck with a "black African phenotype" with a "Basketball Wives", "Love & Hiphop", "Real Housewives", or a "NeNe Leakes" type of mentality! More important than she be a "black African phenotype" is that she not be CORRUPTED by this 21st century Sodom and Gomorrah, not PROVOKE HER BLACK MAN to ANGER as did Rhianna and Evelyn Lozada, that she knows how to BUILD a family rather than DESTROY ONE, that she UNDERSTANDS the DUTIES OF WOMEN and has a BRAIN!!! Don't you know that some of those playmates are escorts? I have more respect for Sister Serena Williams than some playmates servicing Hugh Hefner. We aren't talking about reality TV shows here, since Serena isn't a part of that movement at all. Also, you do realize that Allyson Felix, Carmelita Jeter, Jennifer Hudson, and other sisters are beautiful with a black African phenotype. You kind of omit that, because you prejudge the black female collective by what you see on TV and the media. See, mainstream television has been used as a known propaganda tool that intentionally promotes negative, false stereotypes about our people in order for us to be divided and not united with our people (in creating solutions for our people). That's the point. See, Basketball Wives and all of these other shows should never make us as black men to put sisters into a single box. These shows remind us that we should be above those distractions and fight for true liberty as men. This gender war has been set up by the elites and their house Negro agents in order to promote division. Now, it's a new generation and instead of having some silly gender war, we should advocate a war on illiteracy. We should promote a war on historical lies and a war on discrimination and any form of oppression against the human race. We should be spiritually inclined and moral, but morality is not about the hatred of the feminine principle. It's about the respect for it. No one gender is perfect. Both genders made mistakes and errors. Therefore, both genders should promote common ground in order for moral regeneration to transpire. Also, tons of females have brains or intellectual curiosity. Rihanna and the rest of them haven't caused the Drug War. They haven't invented the war on terror or caused slums and poverty in our world. Their sins never exceed the larger sins of a corrupt, corporate power structure. As for me, I will never be ashamed of loving black women in their unique skin colors and physical dispositions. I love the black African phenotype. That's just me. -By Timothy

Wondering wrote: The way to radically reduce poverty, is for all those that are in poverty to GO TO WORK.Too many people that are able to work are relying on welfare to support them.

The problem is that many people in poverty can't go to work, because the resources aren't there. I can work, so I work. Others don't have that opportunity not because of laziness (for there are tons

of poor folks that have tried application after application and they still can't get a job). It is because of a bad job market at this moment and other reasons. Poverty is complex not simplistic, so you need a comprehensive solution to get folks to work like a jobs bill, investments in infrastructure, and incentives given to companies to grow jobs here in the USA excluding outsourcing. I believe in welfare used for those that need it (since I believe in compassion). I don't need it, so I don't use it. Although, there ought to be an adequate social safety net in order to help citizens during a raining day and this social safety net is even respected by your buddy Rep. Paul Ryan. -By Timothy

Tim, in any relationship, somebody is going to have to be on top. So, will you be on top in your relationship with a female, or will she? Because if she is, I'm promising you your relationship will end, just like 65% of Black marriages. Black men like you believe you can be "equal" to a woman. This is the dumbest mistake a man can make, this idea of equality. Women are not equal to us by any means. They are weaker physically and as a matter of fact mentally to, most of mankind's greatest inventions were made by men. So, as a man do you really believe in being on top in a relationship, or will you cede that to your women? You used Napoleon as a reference; Napoleon was a great men. Hell, if Black men were like Bonaparte our ancestors wouldn't have been slaves working on plantations! This

belief Black men like you have in being "equal" to Black women is one of the reasons why our women don't respect us. Iranian or Afghan or Arab women don't see themselves as being equal to their men. They see themselves as being what they are, which is subordinates. -Kashta Bureh

I believe in equality as its fundamentally true. Equality doesnt mean everyone is identical. A man is not identical to a woman since on average a man is physically bigger and stronger than a female is. Also, males and females have different genetics, phenotypes, hormonal changes, organ differences, and other differences. We men created a whole list of inventions, but women have had their contributions in the world stage as well in numerous areas. Without a woman, we men wouldnt be here since we owe a lot to women. We were born from women, so by that alone, women have a special place in my heart. Sometimes, women give men inspiration to carry on. Also, females can give a man an unique perspective on life in general. Equality does mean all humans have equal value. This means that my life is worth the same as a womans life or my value in the world is equal to a womans right (including the fact that men and women should be treated the same and afford basic human rights). As for who will be on top, each relationship is different. Some relationships work when the man is the leader (other relations in that fashion has experienced divorces) and some relationships work when there is a partnership among males & females (some of these relationships have ended in divorce too). So, the best relationship for a male and female may be difference in numerous cases since not all relationships are monolithic or exactly the same in every circumstance. The 65 percent divorce rates in Black marriages exist because of many reasons like socioeconomic factors, the recession, etc. At the bare minimum, a man should be a man and have a voice in the relationship. We agree that a man shouldnt be dominated by a woman or a man should never be a mime. I prefer to be a man in the relationship, while treating a woman with respect. You can that view this view as you wish. Napoleon is an example thats easily refutable. His Empire was temporary in its existence. He was defeated by a collaboration of European forces and his over extension of resources in the Russian winter snow. He tried to over extend his Empire into of course Haiti and failed. Tolerable, pro-democratic societies have existed for centuries that maintained strength, modernity, and progressive policies like in the America, parts of Africa, parts of Europe, parts of Asia, and other places. You can have high standards of living without an Empire. Even if Empires last for centuries, they still have had a chance of crumbling, because of internal disputes & rebel movements (in the Ottoman Empire, etc.). Also, Afghanistan is having wars over tribal matters and many Arabic nations are having revolutions because of the suppression of basic human freedoms. So, totalitarianism and misogyny against females dont equate into the Utopian golden paradise. We dont have to be like Napoleon to be men.

We just need to be ourselves with confidence, learning self defense, and building real Power to protect our interests (and preserve black unity globally among brothers and sisters. We are all in this together). -By Timothy

___

dweeb wrote: She can't handle the truth. Black women hate nice Black men. But love nice Non-BM. Especially White guys. Then they complain that White guys treat them better. It's BS. Nice guys treat women nice. Bad guys treat women like booty calls. Black women LOVE Bad Black guys. It what turns them on. That is the real truth. She is just in denial.

I disagree. Only a minority of black women want a thug or a bad boy (as opposed to real black men). The vast majority of black women just want a real strong black man. Unfortunately in our day and age, the word nice has been damned as being equated to a punk. Yet, the truth is being nice has nothing to do with being a punk or weak. You can be nice and strong socially at the same time. It's just the media and the establishment harbors an anti-intellectual, anti-social behavior ethos within Western society. Some blacks fall for the trap and act more nihilistic. While, other blacks see the handwriting on the wall and desire real revolutionary changes in the black community. Only the sellout Negroes (a minority) will love so-called nice white people and hate nice black people (of both genders). These Negroes are

sick. So, BLACK WOMEN LOVE NICE BLACK MEN. IT'S JUST THAT BLACK WOMEN DON'T DESIRE SOME PUNK. SO WE WHO ARE BLACK MEN CAN'T ACT LIKE A PUNK. There is nothing wrong with being nice & being a nice black man, but we can't be passive toward oppression or evil. -By Timothy

Timothy (Me) wrote: Sometimes, you don't even get the so-called good men. You get the outcast blacks (whether the person is good or bad). I have respect for the outcasts (as all men are created equal and deserve dignity), but I have to keep it real. Lol! -TruthbknownLDN (A Great Black Sister from the UK)

______ Timothy wrote: Throughout human history, our oppressors dominated people of color and raped them (and used false beauty standards including other strategies as means to glamorize some IR relations & dominate societies sociologically). Our oppressors regularly via the usage of Hollywood (when they present shows presenting the most gross stereotypes about BM and BW. This causes a minority of black people to view black folks collectively in a negative light thrusting them into IRs. Also, it's a fact that a certain percentage of IRs are a product of low self esteem, self hatred, and other illegitimate justifications), movies, ads, media, education, etc. promote the false image of a lighter, Eurocentric phenotype as being better when the truth is that beauty is diverse not monolithic. Many books have talked about this issue. http://www.trojanhorse1.com/ Ok good post and I agree completely. Hollywood has been using these same tricks for decades. Beauty is also very diverse like you said but people often times only consider certain types which is usually what the media is promoting. -Conscience Sister

MrAnderson9 wrote: <quoted text> Timothy, stop being naive. I hate it as much as you do, but the modern day black woman isn't in the least bit desirable. 1500 abortions a day, lack of

intelligent conversation, worships wm and ww, obsessed with ww and ir, and bashes other black women using racial slurs against her own sisters. Black women all fit the same exact mold. I'm not naive. Both genders aren't perfect, BUT I"m not dogging sisters out in a war. We live in a war against white supremacists. So, yes, you show battle cries for reform and propose solutions. Yet, I'm not going to show stereotypes and dehumanize sisters that gave me my life. I'm not into that. Also, I reject stereotypes. I know tons of sisters with real intelligent conversations, and love black men. Not to mention that black women shouldnt be blamed collectively for abortion issues at all. That is an evil tactic in trying to make female guilty when women are victims of a criminal culture (not the orchestrators of it). You should go out to meet sisters in a wider spectrum of locations. Most black women don't care about IR, WW, WM, or whiteness at all. Sisters are just trying to live their own lives. Black women don't fit in the same mold since sisters are not all monolithic. Viewing sisters as monolithic in negative terminology is no different than a bigot demonizing BM in offensive designations. If we want solutions, then we men should be men and stand up to promote our interests, communicate with sisters on how we feel, and believe in just respect for our ethnicity. We have to promote more unity among both genders and both genders should be honest to incorporate authentic solutions without malice. Malice doesn't solve a thing to our social straits. By Timothy

dweeb wrote: So basically. Black women hate nice Black men by default. Unless he can prove he isn't a punk. How does he do this. But passing her never ending s____ tests. Which is exactly how it sounds. NEVER ENDING. But I wonder. Does she s))) test the "nice" white guys. Is she constantly testing to see if he is a punk? What do you think. Of course not. Black women hate nice Black men and love nice white men. I agree with you on one point. There are a minority of black people (both males and females) that treat the so-called "nice" white man as a god, but treats the nice black person (whether the black person is either male or female) like dirt. I have seen it first hand in college, in the streets, and in other places. That is unjustified period. Yet, brother, this isn't representative of every single black woman. You can't generalize. I know sisters from my personal experiences that are very tolerant, treat a nice man with respect, and these sisters treated me with respect. So, not all sisters are monolithic in their behavior. Tons of black sisters are nice, strong, and tolerant. Disrespecting black women is like disrespecting your mother. I am not going to disrespect or scapegoat black women period. I am accountable for my own actions. The answer to this issue is for the nice brothers (who want to be romantically involved with black sisters) to hang out with sisters that will treat you with respect. We have to be patience and talk too. A lot of nice brothers fail to have adequate social skills. So, in many cases the sister may be interested in the nice brother (but the nice brother doesn't act right in a socially mature fashion).

Therefore, the nice brother shouldn't answer some quizzes, but he should be active and forward in communicating with sisters about his feelings or intentions honestly. As for a punk, no one respects a punk. A punk is not a nice guy period. At least a nice guy has respect. You know it and I know it. A rich punk is still a punk. Even Malcolm X called them chumps. Why should be as black men act as chumps. We have every right to be like warriors like our ancestors & express the full capacity of our masculinity. Why would I be a punk when the strongest blacks in history stood up like men and women to defend our honor. Therefore, Black women love nice Black men as Black Women are Queens for real. So, you can be nice, but assertive.

-By Timothy

Note by Me: I show Zaiuss offensive words, because this is how a lot of white racist people think like in private. Some racist white people (not all whites) say these words in private all of the time. By Timothy

Zaius wrote: "Real" African culture is brutal tribal warfare, polygamy, cannibalism, black magic voodoo, slavery, rape and outright murder. All of this is historical fact and can still be observed in most of the global population of black Africans. I have to admit it is impressive that you lot have been able to recreate so much of your traditional culture inside the worlds foremost first world nation after 400 years of western training on how to live like humans. The existence of your black slums all about the USA proves that white people are rather compassionate.

All of those actions that you mentioned have been done by people in the 4 corners of the Earth, even have by some of your relatives thousands of years ago. These acts are man-made errors done by every culture throughout history. It isn't limited to one ethnic group or race regardless of what you say. Like I've mentioned, true, traditional African culture deals with unity, balance, love of family, the essence of growing community, collective concern for black people, and the respect for the

great legacy of our ancestors. That is a historical fact. Many Africans then and now reject those evil acts. You just use these acts done by some people in Africa as an excuse to promote the coarse lie of black inferiority. It's as simple as that and you know this. Most black Africans don't support nihilism and outright murder, etc. That's a slander. If that's the case, there would be little of the black population existing presently. Black people have a great legacy from Kush, the universities of Timbuktu, and to the accomplishments of black people globally now in 2011. Yet, we know which people used unjust oppression against people of color for centuries (including others like the Holocaust) and tried to use religion to justify these deeds (and they still justify it today). Also, we blacks acted like humans before you were born and before the empires of Rome & Greece. You just have this hatred of black people since you have a reactionary agenda. You want black individuals to follow you since you want blacks to be subservient to you like a Tom. Frankly, we blacks reject your pro-Tea Party Klan ideology and your bigoted attitude about people that look like me. Slums exist globally (just like in the mostly white trailer parks in poor sections of America. More of your people are in welfare in America than our people) and there are tons of black people making great contributions in the world via art, history, teaching, athletics, legal affairs, business, politics, manufacturing, science, mathematics, computer science, and a wide spectrum of occupations or jobs. Blacks have a strong legacy.

-By Timothy (Me) ___________________

Isn't that the truth, I have Caribbean heritage on my mother's side. The Caribbeans are great people By Timothy SEXYBLKWOMAN wrote: Cosign sweety.. blk americans and caribeans have more in common then white Americas. .

Tons of musicians even in America have Caribbean blood and the Caribbeans make up a large portion of those fighting in the Civil Rights Movement. A revolutionary spirit and an intellectual mindset incorporate the culture of

Caribbeans (beyond just dance and music). So, they are brothers and sisters in the struggle for black liberation. -By Timothy

Words from the Brother crammasters:

2 months ago I have read study after study that says BW are more confident than women of all other races. As a man, I can cosign that. I have personally seen non-black females act threatened whenever an attractive sister enters their space. I have had non-black females attempt to poison me against BW, by saying negative things about BW, but I don't play that and let them know that UPFRONT.
crammasters

What the H would I look like, letting a white or Asian female tell me some negative S about the same women who represent my mother, my grandma, my aunts, nieces, sisters, friends, etc? What kind of BLACK MAN would that make me?? As far as I'm concerned, speaking bad about BW in general means those nonblack females are jealous of sisters PLUS they can't respect ME if they think I have so little intelligence that I don't know I'm being insulted (and manipulated). years ago, before I got married, I had an Asian female coworker tell me, "You should leave BW alone and let me introduce you to an Asian woman." (i forget what country she was from). That made me wonder, now if she felt this way about BW, why was she was cheesing in this our black female co-worker's face? of course, she waited until that black female walked away to tell me to leave BW alone. Once I put two and two together, the lightbulb came on. I realized she felt insecure around the black female coworker, who had more education, was very intelligent, adn seriously fine (yea, i tried to get with her). I have also seenthe kind of dirty looks my wife gets from non-black females when we go out together. My wife is dark-skinned, wears her hair in a natural, and has a sexy body and a beautiful face (yeah, i'm bragging :-) Dark skin dominates the room and a lot of pale-skinned folks immediately feel intimidated or feel over-powered, or under MELANATED when in the presence of dark folks. Some know we are special in ways they are NOT. Some even know who we are, but in a system of white supremacy, they have to conform to the doctrine of white superiority/black inferiority. That's why white Hollywood won't put beautiful dark skinned sisters in movies and TV shows because they make white females look washed out -- and they draw the eye because they have MORE COLOR.

That's why white folks get tans so they can get some COLOR, look HEALTHIER, STRONGER, AND SEXIER. Check out Dr. Welsing's book -- "Isis Papers: The Keys To Color" -- and you will understand why the lack of skin color created white racism (and envy). Bottom line, non-blacks KNOW sisters got it going on, that's why they're always imitating them and trying to get their features -- the lips, breasts, and butts. They know having long, straight hair don't make the woman, and that there is much more to beauty than hair. They know that BW are the most fertile female on the planet and that white females are the LEAST fertile, and that in EVERY human culture, female FERTILITY is KEY to femininity, desirability, and attractiveness of the FEMALE for the human and animal male population. So they have to knock BW every chance they get, to hide the TRUTH. Which is why there so many articles knocking BW. It's simple once we understand the motivation.

zZZzz wrote: What the hell are you talking about? The fundamental point is the USA is spending 1.65 TRILLION dollars per year it does not have. It has racked up a 15 TRILLION dollar deficit that is growing each day. "[lol] it in in a far less efficient way, many times it is outright wasted. The question is what are you talking about? Megabanks are hoarding trillions of dollars in cash as documented by Krugman and other scholars. We can solve the deficit crisis by doing a lot of things. We can grow the economy first and then have enough resources to handle the deficit long term. You want the opposite when we have record people in food stamps. Cutting massively when poverty is increasing is foolishness and it will cause more poverty. No real person is advocating the government to take all profits from millionaires and billionaires. People are just saying have populist solutions like an infrastructure bank, end the war on terror, have higher tax brackets for taxation, have a real jobs plan to decrease the unemployment rate, have investments in building our country, promote incentives for economic growth, and rebuild our infrastructure in America. The military in various European nations may have a relationship with those nations, but this isnt the real reason or total for their prosperity. The real reason is that public services and other unique solutions can be used in the right way to develop these nations services. The Netherlands is having economic growth without austerity as well. Greece is failing by IMF intervention and other privatization actions according to scholar Michael Hudson. EU intervention has caused issues in Portugal as well. The British Empire has been gone for decades. Camerons austerity conservative measures have done little to improve that nation's finances (and riots have occurred there). Im an Independent, so Democrats arent gods. The Tea Party people have a right to express their views of austerity and war mongering. People like me have the right to disagree with those views. Taxation is found in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and it isnt theft. You need revenues to build things. Cutting alone doesnt work to have radical economic development. Social Security isnt an entitlement since people work to receive the benefits. Other services are used to help people as well. I comprehend a lot of information. Ive refuted your type before (we know your type. Isnt it obvious? You are a slick SNAKE). Tax increases have been higher in times past (from 1945-1975) causing great economic boon via progressive

taxation. Taxation in the right way can be beneficial, but massive tax cuts for the wealthy have increased our deficit. We have record low taxation to the super rich in over 50 years and we still have unemployment in over 9 percent. Trickled down economics doesnt work plainly speaking. Cutting out waste is fine, but stripping real services is foolishness. You hypocrites worship Ayn Rand and neoliberalism (when super banks have had speculations, participated in evil derivatives, etc.), but that snake oil doesnt work anymore. You are a hypocrite by yelling about entitlements, but omit the reality that the big banks received trillions of dollars in handouts, loans, and other funds from the government. This didnt work to move me into loving Austerity 101. I have love Jones for truth including sisters not wishful thinking or archaic economic philosophies in the 21st century. -By Timothy

Zaius wrote: You sound like Nancy Pelosi. She has an excuse, as she is senile and obviously suffering from dementia. "If you want to ban all government regulations, then enjoy child labor, poisons in our water, corrupt medical practices, massive discrimination, massive pollution in our atmosphere, and other evils." Really now. Like you said, this is 2011. Have you taken a look at China recently? They are guilty of all these things and we are borrowing 1.65 trillion dollars a year from them....and you forgot to mention massive human rights violations and outright slavery. A vote for Obama is a vote to guarantee the black community will never recover. "In 2007, best year of the Bush era, white households had a median net worth of $134,280, compared with $13,450 for black households. By 2009, the median net worth for white households had fallen 24 percent to $97,860. For black households, it had plummeted 83 percent to $2,170, a near wipeout. As Algernon Austin of EPI's Program on Race, Ethnicity and the Economy put it, "In 2009, for every dollar of wealth the average white household had, black households had two cents."" I want all Americans to be prosperous. I campaigned and voted for Col. Allen West for this very reason. The progressives want to keep you on the 21st century democrat plantation so you will keep.

them in power.

To Zaius: I dont sound like Nancy Pelosi. I sound like a regular man. You are a pro-Tea Party person, so your apparent views are typical of your agenda. Now, I dont believe that Pelosi has dementia. My quote about government regulations, poisons, etc. is one hundred percent accurate. Without those labor reforms and legitimate regulations, millions of people worldwide would die as a product of ailments. Not all regulations are good, but many regulations are decent. Even your Republican buddies accept some regulations. This is 2011 and in 2011, we need safety standards, pro-environmental protections, and other authentic boundaries in our society since we dont live in the 19th century anymore. Its just that certain folks want us to live in the 19th century though. I realize about Chinas corruption. Ive written for years against Chinas population control measures, antiInternet policies, and human rights violations. People from across the political spectrum strongly disagree with the corruption going on in China. Using that logic, you cant trade and talk with Saudi Arabia either. You talk about borrowing 1.65 trillion dollars a year. Yet, you omit that Wall Street corporations are hoarding $1.8 trillion dollars. The war on terror cost about $3.7 trillion for the past decade according to the newly released study from the Eisenhower Research Project at Brown University. Some estimate show the cost higher than that.

Regardless, we should built jobs first (and financially grow our nation) and then handle our deficit plus debt problems. People are starving to death. So that makes me to make a priority with promoting job creation above the debt. I respect human life above the debt. We have a huge wealth inequality that helped to cause the recession. Specifically, economics professors Saez (UC Berkeley) and Piketty (Paris School of Economics) show that the percentage of wealth held by the richest 1% of Americans peaked in 1928 and 2007 right before each crash. The rest of your stats are very deceptive. Under the Bush years, the poverty rate increased as compared to the Clinton years. The Bush years didnt have radical economic growth as compared to the Clinton years too. Bush Jr. caused a governmental surplus to evolve into a deficit after the Clinton years. Bush rose the deficit and under his administration, the corporate pirates have caused the recession in the first place. So, Bush experienced worst economic conditions than Clinton and the current President Barack Obama inherited the economic tragedies from the George W. Bush administration. Under Barack Obama, he compromised with the Republicans and adopted even some reactionary tax cuts policies. These policies didnt great massive economic growth since the current President was compromising with the Republicans & your Tea Party clan.

That clan is a real CLAN if you get whats Im saying. I mean clan as in clique, LOL. Also, the median net worth for blacks and whites in 2009 are tragic. These events are caused by the effects of great recession that transpired first during the George W. Bush administration not because of the failure of real populist economic solutions (which havent been tried in this time at all).
You have the right to campaign with who you want. Col. Allen West is a man. I dont believe in following any plantation whether the Democratic plantation or Republican plantation. Im a grown black man. I dont to adhere to some plantation period.You love the Republican plantation as you have admitted to. I reject plantations, but I do accept in populism. This populism involves investments, apprenticeships, ending the war on terror, and even creating debt free money. Also, Im not an ignorant fool. You are ignorant by supporting the same policies (like banker speculation, derivatives, corporate raiding, privatization, Wall Street crimes, war mongering, austerity, and trickled down economics) that brought us into the recession in the first place. By Timothy

Zaius wrote: Giving a radical activist a position as a newsman is the ultimate joke really. At least the white racists at MSNBC have a token black person now to deflect criticize of their lily white line up. That is all that really matters.

To the Sister Tamron Hall: Real folks (of every background) appreciate your contributions to the media, your fight against domestic violence, and your fight for educational reform in the world. You are an inspiration for many human beings that desire to follow their dreams.

LOL. You are a funny man. MSNBC expresses it agenda. It's has a more liberal establishment agenda like FOX News is much more conservative. Bias and the mainstream media are just the way it is now. That is why I look at the alternative media. The alternative media and independent magazines, books, and other resources present more accurate forms of information anyway beyond the confines of the mainstream media. MSNBC does have other black reporters like Tamron Hall. I like the sister Tamron Hall since you know she's the sassy, strong type. I like a strong sister and she's more independent in her presentation of her journalism coverage (she doesn't overtly present a political bias in her reporting at all). Tamron also isn't some token since she paid her dues from an occupational standpoint. She worked in Chicago hard to make excellent news coverage. She worked her way to her position and she earned her occupation via true merit & hard work. So, the sister Tamron Hall is not only a credit to black people, but all of humanity. What really matters is to see a wide spectrum of news media to formulate a real picture about the occurrences in the world. If we look at solely FOX or solely at MSNBC, we will not have a better opportunity to uniquely witness the essence of the diversity of the human experience.

-By Timothy

_ Zaius wrote: It is easy to make claims such as this. Your democrat party does it all the time, and they depend on people like you to repeat it without the first bit of research. That is why they give your kind piss poor school and no option for a voucher to escape them. The democrat party requires an ignorant, emotionally reactive base. I certainly hope so. Like I've said before, I'm not a Democrat. I'm an Independent, so I don't get why you keep on calling me a Democrat. I don't need them and I don't use them. It's as simple as that. I research all of the time. Also, I believe in reform. You just believe that everything private is good. I believe that both private and public solutions can be good and constructively utilized to solve problems. I beleive in school choice, but I don't marginalize every public school as extremely nonsuccessful since plenty of successful public schools continue to exist in America. I don't use emotionalism to articulate my positions. I used reasoned information and informed views. In the final analysis, both the Republicans and the Democrats aren't perfect. Each party has their own flaws and have their own constituents that love to drink the Kool-Aid in order to reinforce their ideological views. You have drunk the Republican Kool-Aid faithfully. That is you. -By Timothy

zZZzz wrote: What is obvious to folks inside the USA and around the world is that France is well on the way to losing her character and becoming an insolvent, third world cesspool, due to the socialist policies she is pursuing. Ironically these are the same policies Maxine Waters subscribes to. That is why she and most of her party will be sent home in 2012. Where has austerity worked long term? The fundamental point is that megabanks are hoarding trillions of dollars and they aren't spending it to even seek to create job growth. Many corporations are using outsourcing overseas and these issues are exacerbated by unfair trade deals and the excesses of globalization. W hy are you talking about France? Sarkozy isnt progressive on every issue. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has announced a series of deeply

anti-democratic measures, including the persecution and deportation of Roma, the prosecution of the parents of young offenders, and a proposed law enabling to government to strip immigrants of their French nationality. France wants a balanced budget rule in their constitution too. Frances economic problems existed because of complex reasons. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc. have strong public works systems and follow policies opposite of the Tea Partys fiscal agenda. Yet, they arent experiencing extreme insolvency issues at all. The false god of neoliberal economic ideology doesnt work to create economic growth. You need some spending and some investments (from both the private and public sectors) to create economic growth. That isnt a sin and its found even in the Constitution that the Tea partiers claim to love so much. Economic issues have been caused by privatization, corporate corruption, Wall Street speculation in the derivatives market, and other reactionary policies. Maxine W aters anger is directed to the Tea Party. The Tea Party hypocritically abhor government spending, but many of them rely on Social Security, Medicare, and other government program to help their existence. They hypocritically hate government intrusion yet Bachmann has been found to receive tons of government funds in her daily life. The policies of ending the war on terror, having populist economic policies, and defending the civil liberties of human rights can work wonders for human beings in general. By Timothy

Prof Marvel wrote: The Help will certainly win Best Picture if for no other reason to spite Lee. But whether it will or not it SHOULD while none of Lees work over the past 25 years should have. For all Lees Mau-Mauing about the black race, this first-time novelist white girl wrote a better race movie than he ever has she beat him at his own game... The Help will be studied in film schools; none of Lees work has or will. The genius of The Help is that it takes a topic neither Lee nor Perry or any black filmmaker!dare film and turned it into a box-office blockbuster. The point is this: its the story, not time, place, or situation. Were The Help a movie about soccer moms in Beverley Hills it still would be the box-office blockbuster it is because the authors genius would still shine through. This is the lesson learned from this movie story is king! Likewise, it exposes Perrys crap movies for the crap they are.

LOL. You must have a hatred of Spike and Tyler Perry. I dont hate these men and I dont know them like that. I dont agree with all of the acts of Tyler Perry either. Showing the cultural diversity of black people in films and outlining strong representative of black iconic figurers in a pro-black fashion has nothing to do with agitation or presenting some sense of racial bitterness. It has to do with effectively presenting a cinematic point about displaying our peoples culture & issues. I dont know if the Help will win the Oscar or not. You dont know that in a crystal clear precision either.

Lee doesnt Mau Mau the black race, which is an old false charge that reactionaries, colorblind brainwashed sheep, and other likeminded people utilize. Why are you using Mau Mau when it was the British that terrorized innocent black Kenyans for years long before the Mau Mau existed. Promoting Black Unity and Black Power is a part of common cause and true common purpose to enrich black people. Spike Lee is just saying that if we want to experience that prize of social equality then we have to discuss certain issues even if they make certain people feel uncomfortable. This novelist didnt beat Spike at his own game. The novelist just inspired a movie. Nothing more or less. You act like the Help invented the wheel or something. When a film has popular support among a majority of people, I get cautious since not everything that glitters is gold. Im leaning toward one position about The Help, but I will look at different points of view to develop a pristine opinion about the movie. Sorry, but Crookyln, Malcolm X, and other likeminded films have more relevant in my life than the Help. The HELP may be taught in colleges, but some things cant be taught in a school.

Black people are more than The HELP in our diverse talents and focused intentions to create a determined, tolerable future among the black community. Our goal as blacks isnt to seek acceptance from white soccer mothers or corporate big wigs. Our goal is to seek unity and promote authentic validation within our own people whether they live in rural locations, urban places, or even in the suburbs. Story is vital in a films composition, yet a story can be accepted and rejected based on its content. Content and the way a story deals with controversial subject matters are just as important as the outline of a storyline.

By Timothy

Hayden wrote: Hispanics from mexico arent related to black people and whether they are or not is irrelevant. You should base your opinions of people and situations on their actions not their skin color. If illegal immigration is wrong its wrong regardless of whos doing it or what color their skin is. LOL @ they have black blood so such and such. The only people related to you are your family. Other black people arent even your family. Youre not my brother because we both have brown skin. I dont know you. I knew you would respond in that fashion since that is how your type operates. Heres some truth: There are many black Mexicans living in Mexico today. This population is of course small. There are tons of Afro-Latinos in Latin America South America (even Brueh talks about this all of the time). People who are of black African descent therefore number in far more than 40 million indeed in the Western Hemisphere. Being related to black people is very relevant since in black culture all black people are brothers and sisters. You can disagree with that view and that is your right. I accept my brothers and sisters worldwide and I respect my own black identity. I dont need to scapegoat people of color to get my kicks. I dont need to ignore racist white reactionaries (with ties to eugenics and the white supremacist system) that dont give an inch of concern of my people either. I do base peoples actions on their behavior not on their skin color. I just dont ignore the actions of people of a certain color (not all people of this color) causing police brutality, GMO food poisoning, immoral wars, eugenics, international population control, imperialism,

corporatize corruption, and other evils beyond what illegal immigrants did in America. I dont ally with devils (or a select number of reactionaries) to be a saint. Some Hispanics (not all) have black blood. Thats the fact that you must accept. People that are related to me are my brothers and sisters worldwide since all of my ancestors originally came from Africa. If youre black, thats some House Negro, slave minded tripe to refuse to believe that all black people are related to each other (since these black people are our brothers and our sisters for real). That opinion that you hold is a disgrace. Yet, anyway, the truth will prevail, hatred will end, and obsession with Mexicans in a bigoted tone isnt in my agenda. A rational, comprehensive solution to immigration is better than extremism. By Timothy

You should have an issue with clothing. If you (or I) saw a white man (or women) with a swastika or a kkk outfit wouldnt your heart beat faster. Its the same with black men (and women) who dress like their from the hood not all of them are criminals but a lot of them are. I remember this one time I almost got robbed by two black guys and they were dressed up like thugs. The chances of a person with a suit and tie obbing you are 1 to 10. Plus I just read a story about a black college student who was killed for fifty cents thats worse than most openly racist kkk type white person who Ive dealt with in the past. Id rather deal with their BS than be robbed (or killed) over 10 dollars like a lot of black people in the inner-city do to each other on an almost daily basis. Im so paranoid I dont even bring my iPod with me out in public, nor have my cell phone out with me. I remember a couple of weeks ago a thuggish looking black man kept looking behind me when I was walking but when he was behind white people he didnt look behind him. The biggest uncle toms are the rappers who come from the hood not white washed blacks who grew up in the burbs. For example Sean Combs kid might get a scholarship from a college because hes good at football. Is that fair to a middle class or poor kid that not financially blessed ?

This is a great discussion and heres my response to you. I dont have an issue with clothing typically, but Im not a nihilistic person. Of course, if someone wears racially insensitive objects on themselves like swastika or a KKK, my antennae is raised to protect myself. Protecting others and yourself doesnt equal into fear, but common sense. I said I wasnt afraid of anybody thats made up of flesh and blood. I didnt say I was stupid in putting my life in

general in risky situations. I take a person as an individual if they wear urban clothing without preconceived notions about them. Urban clothing doesnt deal with imagery that is equated to the KKK at all. So, urban clothing is just regular clothing. Ive seen brothers with urban clothing all of the time and they arent criminals or real thugs. My heart wouldnt beat faster. As long as a man doesnt put their hands on me, Im living my life. Criminals exist in many appearances from the urban look, the suit and tie look, the camouflage look, and other forms of clothing. Crimes (like WWII, the Soviet gulags, GMO actions, etc.) done by a suit and tie wearing person has historically been more wicked than a common street thug. The suit and type types wage wars, use GM foods, and use acts that killed millions of folks worldwide. I dont believe in you being robbed or anything like that, but most people wearing urban clothing arent looking to harm you. You are right that a person should use common sense (if youre in a crime prone area) to protect your life. No one should feel caged in. Also, people in communities can call for crime prevention programs in college areas and other vicinities as well. You are partly right on the Uncle Tom part. If an artist promotes nihilistic behavior, hatred of women, glamorization of violence, and other disruptive acts, they are no different than a black Uncle Tom hating their own people. On the other hand, a whitewash black from the suburbs hating his own people isnt right either. True, authentic black people exist in the suburbs, the rural areas, and the urban areas. Yet, music alone isnt the cause of our problems. We can ban all music period and it wont solve anything. I see no issue with a scholarships for athletic people as long as its gotten legitimately (poor people and middle class folks should have more resources though). The rappers arent the reason why inner cities have problems though. These problems existed before Kool Herc. The reasons for these problems are socioeconomic factors. The rappers didnt create slums, unemployment, family dysfunction, and even the War on Drugs having havoc in our communities. Yet, these rappers arent gods to be worshipped. They should be held to the equal standard that all of us black people should be held to in our actions. -by Timothy (Me)

Sire, The vast majority of poor people do not pay taxes sir. They cant afford a car!!! The amount of money they would pay in gas taxes would be tiny even if they had a car. The vast majority of poor people do not pay property taxes either because they cannot afford a house!!! Where are you getting your information from??? It is incorrect. The rich (top 25 percent) pay 87 percent of income taxes. They also pay substantially more in property taxes because more expensive homes have astronomically higher property taxes. My statement that half of the people are paying for the other half is without a doubt true. It most certainly does border on eugenics. I am not saying that poor people cannot reproduce though. I am saying that we should have incentives to keep them from reproducing. We should give incentives to those who are most capable of successfully raising children also. To be against this is to be for the present system where we are allowing slag to reproduce and rewarding them for their sloth. It is completely immoral and wrong what we are doing. One percent of the population owns a great amount in every country my lord. W hat does that have to do with attempting to make poor people accountable just like everybody else??? -bonzino

Here is my response to you: The vast majority of the poor and the middle class pay more taxes than the super rich. Thats a fact (as in both middle class and the poor not the poor alone). The poor may less taxes in the federal income level since they cant afford those taxes simply put. Some of the poor have cars and some dont Even people in low income neighborhoods have cars. We have a progressive tax system since a regressive tax system will harshly harm the poor and increase the risk of a higher poverty rate. In the past, there were much higher tax rates on the super rich. In that time ironically, economic prosperity came about from 1945 to 1980. Like Ive said, federal income taxes are not all of total federal taxes. All federal taxes for the top 1 percent at 22.7 percent according to the Urban Institute/Brookings Institute Tax Policy Center for 2010 (or the top 1 percent of income earner pay about 40 percent of all taxes into the federal government). For instance, the top 20 percent paid 86 percent of the income tax, but 42.9 percent of the payroll tax. Also, the Social Security portion of payroll tax applies only up to $106,800 in income. Meanwhile, the middle 20 percent of earners paid 4.6 percent of federal income taxes in 2007, but 16.6 percent of payroll taxes. Also, the payroll tax applies only up to $106,800 in income, with no tax on earnings above that limit.

So, federal income taxes doesnt equate into all taxes in the federal level or even all taxes in the state or local levels either. It should have noted that the income limit applies only to Social Security taxes. Some rich folks pay more in homes since we have a progressive system. That when those who have more wealth have great economic responsibility. Also, you omit tax loopholes, some super rich paying no taxes, subsidies, and other economic kickbacks. Having incentives to the poor to not produce children is borderline eugenics. We both agree on that. A better solution would be to have unique programs to fight against poverty not the incentive plan. Also, historically many poor human beings have risen from poverty to contribute greatly to society (and we can have a jobs plan, radical solutions, and other means to fight against poverty without borderline eugenics incentives). Also, welfare should be reformed to give it to those who need it. Not everyone on it acquires sloth, but they are suffering. Poor scapegoating in our time is futile in developing a real solution. I know about immorality. Its immoral to have illegal wars, its immoral for bankers to hoard bailout money, its immoral to have the crimes from super rich Wall Street, and its immoral for the super rich to cause the recession too. Thats immoral. Poor people are made accountable for their acts, but they are also made scapegoats for the crimes of the super rich. The crimes of the super rich include the recession, various wars, economic plunder, IMF corruption, spying, and various other scandals. -By Timothy

Mr Zaius wrote: Wow, imagine having to work and care for yourself without a big daddy government there to give you food stamps and a section 8 ghetto slum apt to live in. Imagine keeping what you earn so you could afford to educate your children in a private school where they would learn more than gay rights and what slave carried supplies for George Washington. It is truly hilarious to see you simpletons led around by your fat noses by millionaires like Nancy Pelosi that employee illegal aliens and non union workers on their massive vineyards and winerys. It is like watching a horse chasing a carrot hung in front of his head. LMFAO@ Food Safety.

There is nothing wrong with a person to live their lives without governmental assistance if they desire to. Yet, not all people live in the exact way and in the exact same fashion at every circumstance. Some people need more assistance than others during lifes journey. Government shouldnt be a false god neither free markets either. Also, more than 40 million people have food stamps, Section 8, etc. Many of them have these benefits not because of laziness or reckless behavior, but because of the effects of an economy in American society. Some people by no fault of their own lost their jobs and are struggling. Charities and private non profits alone cant solve this problem. You need private and public instruments in fighting

against poverty & economic depression conditions. I believe in keeping what your earn, but even the Constitution says that taxes exist, funding services exist, and government exists. If you work, you have to pay taxes and many of these taxes are used to enrich the lives of the poor, the elderly, and the disadvantaged in lifes road. As for Democratic hypocrites like Nancy Pelosi (legal immigration is fine with me, but without unions, we wouldnt have many of the economic & labor rights that we cherish today. Also, food safety isnt a sin. Having no regulations to protect our food is suicidal), you are right. We shouldnt justify that behavior, but Im not being a Republican just because some Democrats have engaged in hypocrisy during their political experiences. You have the right to educate your child in any place, but its common knowledge that radical solutions are needed to improve public education (without austerity measures). Many public schools are having major successes. Also, Reaganonics and trickle down economics not working are embraced by antiintellectual, ignorant peoples. There has been a higher tax rate on the wealth during the Clinton years and between 1945-1975 that have caused an economic boon.

-By Timothy

Mr Zaius wrote: That is 40 million to many. Churches and private organizations exist to help people that need it. The government is notoriously inefficient so how can they be expected to distribute what others have earned fairly? The government is there to protect the sovereignty of the country, period. The economy is in a hole because of oppressive government regulations. Gas is $4.00 a gallon because of the EPA. Businesses are running to China and India to escape a 35% tax rate and BS environmental regulations. I believe they can. They did before 1965. The government has no place handing out what I have earned to people who vote for people who promise to give them what I have earned. Where does The Constitution provide for this? We spend more than any other nation on providing public education in the world and it is a dismal failure. How is dumping even more money a solution? How does taxing business even harder end in prosperity? You do not seem to understand that Reagan policies saved this nation from Democrat Jimmy Carter {Obama the first} and lead to the boom we saw from 1988-2009. Democrat government regulations are what crashed the economy by forcing banks to take on people who could not pay back the loans.

I agree with you that over 40 million people in the USA on food stamps, etc. are 40 million too many. I dont have it, but I dont knock the next man having it if they need it sincerely. Now, we just disagree on how to decrease the numbers. You agree with austerity and I believe that comprehensive public and private programs can decrease these numbers (like job training programs, housing assistance, and other real system to develop economic growth). Churches and private groups can help, but not everyone goes to church and not everyone is even a Christian or has access to private groups. Therefore, a more comprehensive solution is necessary to give help to as many human beings as possible. Inefficiency has existed in the government because of corporate influence, immoral laws, and other evils. Private corruption and inefficiency have existed and you conveniently omit that from BP to Bernie Madoffs acts. No one said that government is perfect, but government should be part of the solution. The government has more of a responsibility than just protecting our borders. The government as Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says that the government federally (beyond just state power) can promote science, build roads, have taxes, deal with currency, and deal with infrastructure. The Great Society programs decreased poverty in half from 1960-1970. The Vietnam War, globalization, the ignoring of sending funds to help the poor (as Dr. Martin Luther King admitted that funding imperialism while neglect programs of social uplift can cause America to have spiritual death), and other reactionary policies havent made the Great Society programs completely effective.

The economy is in trouble because of reactionary policies, speculations, Wall Street crimes, extreme globalization, and bad regulations (as not all regulations are evil). No one says that every regulation is fine, but we need some of them to prevent pollution, water poisoning, fraud, and criminal actions. Businesses are running to China and India for their bottom line primarily or to seek profit. The wealthy have had record wealth causing record wealth inequality, there is record low taxation on the super wealthy, and we have transnational corporations still whining. The CBO report shown in October 25 found that the richest 1 percent of all U.S. households saw a 275 percent increases in their income between 1979 and 2007. This is more than doubled their share of the national income. If you want all environmental regulations gone, expect possible animal extinction, more mutations in our ecosystem, and more death in our society. I believe that private groups can solve our problems, but they cant do it alone.

Before 1965, we had child labor, slavery, the elderly dying by lack of health care, etc. therefore; progressive efforts were utilized as a necessity to enhance our standard of living. Even before 1965, the federal government created the Homestead Act to give government money to fund settlers in the West Coast. Yet, we heard the bootstraps routine from reactionaries. Without such funding, the West wouldnt be as developed as it is today. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution promotes taxation period. Slight increases in the super rich (not every business) has caused (in conjunction with tax cuts for the middle class plus investment or using money to help people) prosperity, because it worked in the past. I dont believe money alone can solve our educational problems in public school, but its a start. We can use cultural development, unique programs, tutorship, and other means to help students not just money. Reagan saved us? Reagan caused millions of people to be in poverty in his first term with ca. 10 percent unemployment in 1982. The deficit increased rapidly in his 2nd term. Reagan did cause our GDP to increase in his second term. Carter couldnt stop the inflation started in ca. 1965 growing rapidly. Volcker closed the money supply causing the recession via the FED not Carter. Carter gave the rich a tax cut and deregulated trucking, railroads, etc. These actions didnt cause economic growth. Obama compromised with the Republicans and this hasnt caused massive economic growth either. The economy now was crashed by reckless speculation via big banks being involved in a derivative market. -By Timothy

Debates in 2012
zZaius wrote: You either support them murder of infants or you don't. Frankly I find it hypocritical that we do not allow mothers that have fallen on hard times to abort their child whenever it is convenient. Imagine how that would help with the massive poverty this nation is facing! 46 million folks and rising! We need to give them the tools to deal with this situation! It is about compassion, like the early term abortions that are allowed now. The fathers have run off and left the women to care for a child they can't afford and many times do not even want. You just want to control a woman like this was the 1500's and imprison her if she doesn't live up to your standards of what is right and wrong. Animals kill their offspring all the time. If they are defective or not really viable, some animal mothers will actually eat their children to lessen the burden on her more viable offspring! It is really along the same lines how we compare animals that seemingly display homosexual tendencies with humans that make a choice to be gay. It is all about being fair, and forcing a woman to care for a child she doesn't want or has no time for is pure evil and no different than slavery. You don't support slavery, do you? You believe that corporations alone or private interests alone can solve poverty. I don't. I believe in both private and public avenues to solve poverty. You reject any form of federal program to assist human beings living in poverty. I don't. That's a big difference between me and you. The rest of your arguments are hypotheticals that dont refute the fact of Santorum being a hypocrite on the role of the federal government at all. Also, poverty has increased on the middle class while the abortion rates have remained the same over the course of 10 years. Therefore, regressive, austerity measures contributed to the higher poverty rate in America not abortion policies alone. When the middle class is being poorer, the issue is bigger than abortion. I dont desire infants to die at all like Peter Singer. I don't believe in slavery. Slavery is about an immoral control over a human being (with that human being tortured, abused, and sometimes killed without payment or just compensation). Slavery has nothing to do with the issue of Santorum's hypocrisy at all. I don't agree with dead beat dads running out of their responsibilities. I don't believe in imprisoning women, so you are putting words in my mouth. We humans have differences than every animal since we can deduce complex language, we can travel into space, and we have higher cognitive thinking. Therefore, laws should be fair and not reactionary. Moral absolutes existed throughout human history. You believe in a regressive foreign policy that has led to the killings of millions of human beings in the past 10 years. I don't. You believe in supporting a party that scapegoats the poor and accepts Ayn Rand's tired Objectivist philosophy. I don't. I believe in compassion since compassion means caring for babies after they are born and believing that welfare for those that need it isn't a curse at all. Also, I believe that just because a child is in a poor environment, doesn't mean that they lack

value. They have as much value as any human. Many people from a poor environment have made a huge success via affirmative action programs, anti-poverty programs, and other public policy solutions. I never wrote that the federal government should regulate all matters. You are putting words in my mouth again. You believe that the federal government should bomb sovereign nations under a false pretext and that the federal government should activate austerity to harm poor citizens. The tools to solve poverty include investments, a jobs program, help for poor citizens, the rejection of austerity, better education, better health, mentorships, and other common sense actions. -By Timothy

Miss_Cocoa wrote: Actually, I haven't personally experienced dating evil black men. Yet, when I caught a glimpse of that behavior, I cut them like a fish. They were gone from my dating world. I honestly don't know if I want to defend the culture of African Americans. I mean truly, what does the African American culture consist of, in your eyes? I would be more than proud and willing to defend African American culture had I been raised in a different era. Such as the era of the black panthers and the refreshing, new range of black artists and their beautiful music! But now I feel as if African American culture has become about being ghetto, degrading messageless rap music with sleazy a___ music videos and idk I just feel like the meaning of African American culture has been completely diluted. Your thoughts? My thoughts are that our community has serious issues like others. Since, this forum deals with our people, here are my thoughts. It sounds like a broken record, but it's true that there was a lot more cultural cohesiveness among black people back in the 1960's (with the Black Panthers, the Civil Rights Movement, the Black Power Movement, etc.). Today, the degeneracy that we see is what I don't deduce as a part of real black culture. I believe that the sleazy music videos, the profanity, the wicked messages, etc. represent a corrupt Western cartel-capitalist culture. It's a culture that's exploitative and racist (as you see that this culture bashes both black men and especially black women). Now, the ghetto is just a location, not a state of mind. Some folks falsely equate ghetto with savage behavior exclusively when tons of people living in the ghetto presently have made a great living or have a great sense of personal character. There are folks in the rich communities and suburbs that act in an inappropriate fashion. Now, the problems in the ghetto exist. That's real and we can't deny that. They exist because of socio economic and cultural problems not because of the essence of black culture. We can see real black culture today in 2012 via underground music, real singers, art, business leaders, scholarships, lawyers, and a wide spectrum of black leaders in our community. The problem now is that the recession and cultural complications are harming our community. We have to fight against the degeneracy by being more active (creating programs, protesting, fulfilling our lives, helping our people, etc.) since no other ethnic group is going to solve our problems, but us. We are the only people in the final analysis that can alleviate our own circumstances. Great fashion works are being created presently by black people like June Ambrose. This is a part of black culture too. Black people and fashion go hand and hand. -By Timothy

This is about Liberal people of empowered ethnocentric activism not wanting to live up to the style of expected integration and assimilation that countless European immigrants had to do in the past. it is about them being ethnocentric people who generate notions of what it is to a "black" person out of thin air and then use those notions to insult other fellow "blacks" who don't follow them. The Irish don't have any vast ideas of what it is to be "Irish" and don't even mainly identify as Irish here anymore. Not even mentioning that being "black" isn't a race of any kind. Today it is all about Liberal ethnocentrics manufacturing their own separate personal culture in order to self segregate themselves and gain power over everyone else in society and never assimilate into being "just Americans" with them. I am so glad my Irish ancestors who faced "no Irish need apply" never had such a tainted podium as these groups do today. They are all assimilated now and happily can be derided by highly segregated groups as the supposed formless mass of supposed no differing ethnic ancestry that didn't' supposedly earn anything of what they have. Well this crap now, is not the "melting pot" that our nation has always expected of past groups here before. It is a pernicious thing that allows the generating of a culture around the notion of "being Black" and around being a Mexican nationalist forever in the US and never really assimilating into Americanism. Anyone who doesn't live by this Liberal ideology in those communities are abused for it, men like Herman Cain for instance. This is why I am SOOOO god d___ happy my ancestors only had the option to "Shut up and assimilate" back then over the racism that they faced. Now they are long over "no irish need apply" and are a part of just being "Americans" now. If they had had this Liberal non integrative ethnocentric podium of today back then, then they most likely would have never assimilated and would have fallen into making similar notions of what it is to be ideologically "irish" and then would have used that to abuse any fellow irish people not living purely by that one aesthetic of "irishness". This is not how "White" people lived and identified on mass here even during the days of racism and slavery. Sure their was the vast phony notion of "whiteness" to justify segregation and slavery gripping our society back then, but among the mass of "white" immigrant peoples, they mostly lived by their differing ethnic styles, not some notion of what it is to be"white". I am sorry that I don't agree with you that those who now identify with this notion of "Black" identity are anything but people swinging the racial pendulum in counter racialized direction from the past racists who identified by a notion of "Whiteness". This is notion of "blackness" is the spawn of bitterness being empowered with advantage. The "Whiteness" identifying racists laid the seed for your bitter hearted counter identification with "blackness" culture later, and now you use it to judge others without mercy and never integrate or assimilate. Yet you wonder why conservative white people like myself can't identify with you or have dialogs with you most of the time. None of this Liberal progressive racialism now is helping assimilation in any way, and I would be surprised if Dr king would be in support of it today anymore. The fact is that the "Black" movement even of Dr Kings time, bred a lot of militant racial consciousness as it gained it head of steam to achieve the Civil Rights act. The militancy of these other groups ran over anyone not as militant or racial as them who was black for their relations with individual whites as "uncle toms" back then too. Yet that behavior was glorified in men like Mohammed Ali, who bigotedly insulted a man like Joe Frazer without remorse. This is even after Frazier had been a friend to him by getting him reinstated to fight and lent him money during rough times. btw...I am attaching a vid of Ali and his candid words on Joe Frazer and

race issues, if it doesn't end up turning your stomach than something is wrong with you. Sincerely, CyberSpaceman81 Here is my response. In your mind, you conceive this as a liberal issue. To me, it isnt. To me, even conservative black nationalists in many occasions (not just black progressives) agree to promoting black cultural standards in society (for their peoples interests). Promoting these standards again isnt racism or divisive bigotry. I disagree with you on that point. Promoting black families, black culture, and black improvements in education, etc. relate to common sense. Now, empowered ethnocentric activism isnt immoral in my eyes. You havent shown examples on how its wrong. This activism can be positive. The reasons are that black power can grow confidence in black people, it can cause more black economic opportunities to grow, and it can grow the black panAfricanism agenda more strongly. These acts are very legitimate. Now, European immigrants never experienced the Maafa, the slave trade, Jim Crow laws, massive rapes on the levels of black Africans, and the total destruction of their language, culture, and religions. The Irish never suffered as harshly as black people have then or now. Therefore, the experiences of European immigrants are different than my people. These ethnic groups (that you discuss via examples) assimilated into Western society as part of a voluntarily choice and they still maintained their religious & cultural traditions. For example, Irish, Serbian, Indian, and Chinese recipes, languages, & religions are commonly known. See, our people have been stripped totally of our language, culture, and religion by degenerate, racist, and rapist pieces work (I could use other names to describe these people, but you know the language). Notions about being black are reserved for black people to define, not you or any other non-black person. These notions arent devised out of thin air, but by clear definitions. If a black person loves his people, and wants black people to improve their community, he or she is pro-black. If a black person wants the opposite agenda for his people, he or she isnt pro-black. Thats a simple description. The Irish do have definitions of Irish heritage including the Indians, including the Jews, etc. Their cultural diversity is embraced by them. Even today, the Irish have their parades and cherished their stories and historical culture. Also, just because an immigrant comes into this continent doesnt mean that minorities are lazy or havent worked hard. Black people worked their tails off for this country and discrimination plus hatred prevented many black people (back years ago) from achieving full equality. That is precisely why new laws like the 1964 Civil Rights Act were created and activism was executed in order to give black people greater opportunities. Also, true Americanism isnt about historical revisionism to deny the cultural aspects of black people or Mexican Americans. True Americanism is to have tolerance yes, but it is also acknowledge the errors that acuminated in the history of the United States. See, if you sugarcoat reality, then falsehoods will blatantly persist in the thinking of some human beings. We as black people have every right to define our own cultural identity without accepting the expectations of a hypocritical, supremacist culture. I think a person has every right to voluntarily join communities to benefit their own people without Jim Crow segregation. How is that evil? It is not evil for a black people to work with other black people to improve the communities of black Americans. See, you want to end black people from uniting to solve problems in order for black people to deny their black heritage. That is your game plan, but in 2012, an increasingly number of black people reject assimilation into a corrupt, materialist culture. We blacks are waking up and we want Black Power. As for Americans, no one said that a black person loving their people hates the term of Americans. If a black person is an American citizen, he is or she is an American. Its not a big deal. Yet, as a black man, I have the right to promote my black culture in foods, intellectual pursuits, fashion, athletics, literature, math, science, engineering, and a myriad of themes found in black consciousness. If you want a melting pot, you have free reign to live in whatever community

that you wish that embraces that philosophy. More power to you. Yet, my people have issues and I cant help my people by embracing colorblindness. I will help my people by uniting with my people. See, black unity and Black Power ends the paradigm of assimilating into a system that wishes for black culture to be destroyed. Also, the reactionary agendas of poor bashing, austerity, theocratic propaganda, etc. have been exposed for the eyes to see. Herman Cain is wrong, because he believes in a suicidal foreign policy. He accepts the regressive flat tax and he believes that racism plays no serious role in American life (when his own people suffer police brutality, discrimination, and stereotypes day in and day out today). Its bigger than liberal vs. conservative. Its about economic justice and treating your neighbor as yourself vs. the status quo of regressive traditionalism. You are glad that you ancestors were told to shut and assimilate (thats amazing since JFK certainly didnt shut up. He fought like man and defended the poor and the oppressed). So, the Irish didnt shut up. I am so glad that my black people didnt shut up and brothers plus especially sisters fought back against white supremacy to defeat Jim Crow oppression. My black ancestors fought like men and women also to advance black liberation against oppressors too. You discuss about how white people lived omitting that many white people (not all of them) lived back then in the realm of bigotry, silence amidst oppression, and betrayal of the Bill of Rights. Black cultural identity has nothing to do with bitterness or a sense of revenge. Its about black people seeking to affirm their manhood. Its about black people reconnecting with their ancestors and Africa in general. You falsely assume that a black-identified strong man is obsessed with your people. We are not. It seems that people like you are obsessed with us blacks, because you are angry that black people are waking up to the crimes (that originated from European imperialists, rapists, and criminals) & desire Black Unity. Black Unity & the growth of the black community is a threat to white supremacy indeed. You want to omit those crimes. I dont. Many of you white conservatives cant identity with me in dialogue, because you deny greatly racism in society (and economic inequality caused by guess what corporatists). Also, you want black people to accept your thinking, your way of life, and your attitude under your domination. See, we blacks have the right to not be culturally or socially dominated by you. We have the right to develop potent black independent thinking that is strong at its core. The rest of your words are interesting. Affirming our heritage is real. Now, you use a tactics of believing in historical revisionism about Dr. Martin Luther King. See, from 1967 onward, Dr. King woke up a great deal. He saw how America was and abhorred the white backlash (which exists today in the Tea Party Movement). Dr. Martin Luther King in 1967 and 1968 spoke about the positives of Black Power, while disagreeing with the usage of riots as morally reprehensive actions. Also, Dr. King said and wrote that black people must affirm their heritage and that the crimes of white society are apparent. He also shook hands with Muhammad Ali on tape. Ive seen the footage on YouTube. Dr. Martin Luther King wanted a guaranteed annual income, he opposed the unjust Vietnam War, he wanted an economic bill of rights (via his Poor Peoples Campaign), and he believed in the growth of black businesses throughout the world. So, Dr. King wasnt the Tiger Woods or the Alfonso Riberio type of brother. He was a strong brother with a great intellect and pristine perspectives that run in glaring contrast to the views of white conservatives like you. You are right that Alis characterization of Joe Frazier was wrong. Frazier was a man making a living and he financially helped Muhammad Ali. So, Muhammad Ali was right to oppose the Vietnam War and defend the honor of black, beautiful sisters. Ali was wrong to demonize Frazier in that fashion. No real man agreed with that. Yet, Muhammad Ali apologized for his error and continued to fight against poverty, illiteracy, and injustice to this very day in 2012. I dont believe that a black person is an Uncle Tom if they are friends with individual whites. A person is an Uncle Tom if they harbor hatred & disgust for their own people and work to promote white supremacy instead of black liberation. Militancy is necessary in creating determined change if that militancy is part of a

positive force. Blatant militancy was a crucial method in accomplishing the American Revolution itself. If militancy is directed in a wrong fashion, then I oppose it.

By Timothy

More Debates with a Reactionary

My Responses are in bold: @TruthSeeker24 Do you even know what the term "Nazi" is derived from? National SOCIALIST Workers' Party. Aside from that, my point was that both governments, while on paper were supposed to be polar opposites, were actually run very similarly. The key to note is the amount of power the people gave to the government in the guise of protection. If you don't think something like that is possible if we keep heading down our current path, look at the Patriot Act, a most decidedly unpatriotic law. LordGouda 2 days ago Reply

@LordGouda I know what Nazism entail and their full name. So, that rhetoric doesn't move me to be like you (an anarcho-capitalist). It's a historical fact that Nazis destroyed unions, killed socialists, harmed human civil liberties, and used totalitarianism. Socialism believes in unions and so forth, so the Nazis aren't true socialists at all. Nazism suppressed the rights of the people. I reject the Patriot Act. A progressive government should enhance the rights of the people. TruthSeeker24 1 second ago Reply

@TruthSeeker24 Actually, the document in its original form does not divide people of color. The amendments that you just said you support, such as the horrid three fifths amendment, reduced the rights of certain people. That's my point: if you read the original document, it can be used for anything we have today. The amendments meant to "clarify" the constitution are what destroyed it. LordGouda 2 days ago Reply

 @LordGouda You argument proves my argument that Amendment chances is one method (out of many) to devise legitimate reforms in America. We live in the 21st century and we can't be static in our social development. Life evolves and humanity evolves to suit to the changing times of society. The original document can be used for many things today, but it didn't address female voting rights, Jim Crow, and other matters. We need Amendments to help our country. You need to comprehend that. TruthSeeker24 1 second ago Reply

@TruthSeeker24 Equality of outcome means not equality ..but the forced degradation of all standards, dumbing down culture, dumbing down tests dumbing down performance looking past failure after failure until you get "equality". Equality is lie, and a tyranny 871yt 3 days ago Reply

@871yt Now, equality means that all human beings have equal worth and equal value (and they should be given the same equal rights & equal opportunities in life). Even Republicans disagree with you on that issue. Equality is never about equal outcome. You distort the true meaning of equality to promote a reactionary viewpoint of austerity. Corporate influence has contributed to our cultural/educational problems. Equality isn't tyranny. Equality is the truth. TruthSeeker24 1 second ago

___________________

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution allows the federal government to fund science, have taxes, and build infrastructure. So, yes, the type of government the Founders envisioned was a government using public and private means to build roads, have science, and to create infrastructure too. King George used labor exploitation to promote his British Empire.

TruthSeeker24 3 days ago

_________________

zZaius wrote: Poverty will always be with us, until someone invents a pill which can raise IQ levels......! Knowing that poverty can never be eliminated I choose to go with a system that has uplifted more people from poverty and vastly improved the lives of millions upon millions of people than any other system ever created by man. Free market capitalism, which works best without governmental bureaucratic intervention. Please read this: http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-r... Truly amazing, eh? The power of free market capitalism UNLEASHED! You are making the same mistake they made in the former USSR , Cuba, North Korea and every other nation which has embraced socialism as a cure to societies ills. The federal government is not about compassion. It is about control and political power for a modern day ruling class. The smaller the government is, the better off the people are. Surrendering your liberty for the promise of a government utopia, where everything is 'fair' and 'equal' is a shortcut to enslavement AKA North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe and on and on. The political ruling class would just as happily beat you for not picking as much rice as the next guy as they would be happy to put you in jail for growing a plant on your private property. You are the famous comedian again Zaius. Weve been down this road before. Just because theoretically that poverty can never be brought down to 0 percent, that doesnt mean we should do nothing to fight it. Our poverty rate can radically come down from over 8 percent unemployment. Also, your IQ shot is disrespectful, because tons of poor individuals have a high IQ. Now, you claim that free market capitalism was the strongest instrument that brought down poverty more than any instrument known to man. That is of course very false, because never in American history (or world history) that we have a financial system free from all government intervention. President George Washington supported federal funds for canals. Eisenhower used federal dollars to build up our interstate highway system and President Kennedy used government money to fund NASA, pro-union policies, and foreign aid. That is antithetical to the totally laissez faire capitalist system. What works is a mixed economy (that promotes private enterprise, legitimate regulations, and public services too). That works. You list certain nations, which is slick my fellow. The government cant solve every problem, but the government can be used as an instrument for improvements. Humans can show compassion without the state, but that doesnt mean the government is left out of the equation. Not to mention that labor rights, civil rights, environmental protection, and other benefits in our land arent representative of free market capitalism at all. I dont believe in jailing people growing a specific plant in their private property. I do believe in jailing people who enact massive fraud, murder, and oppression on their private property though. Although, you conveniently omit the pro-social democratic nations of Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, etc. that have strong public resources to help their citizens out. They arent following Austrian economics. Much of their health, education, GDP, and human development index are better than America's indicators of its standard of living. It was the federal government spending money to end the Great Depression. It was federal involvement that contributed to the decline of the poverty rate in the USA in half from 1960 to 1970 as well. Smaller government doesnt work in every case to help a kid to pay for student loans or to solve interstate issues. I believe that the government shouldnt control every aspect of society. I believe the government should protect our liberties. I just believe that the government should promote the general welfare of the people. Your pro-oligarchy positions are really about socialism for the rich and cartel-capitalism for the poor.

The former USSR, Cuba, and North Korea=nations that used policies that violate human civil liberties. This doesn't refute the notion of legitimate social democratic principles of being essential to enhance our standard of living at all. You can have the government to exist, civil liberties, and private & public services to exist at the same time in one country. It's not about big or small government. It's about efficient government that is free from corporate control. Our government is controlled heavily by corporate influence. This is one reason why some parts of the US government has gone haywire. -By Timothy

My original words to Desmond:

There are exceptions to the rule. Yet, if a man wants to do something, a man should be just active and accomplish their goals directly. So, I do believe that a man should court a woman, because culturally we men are territorial, we like our space, and we can be aggressive because of our testosterone. Therefore, a real man should be active in communicating with woman for romance first. Sometimes, subconsciously, a woman courting a man views the man as inferior socially (not physically), because some women see that man as a work in progress (not a real strong, progressive human being or not an equal emotionally strong partner). That is why some men who are courted by women feel lackadaisical in their relationships. They feel entitled when a relationship is about common bound (and mutual sacrifice) not a man depending on a woman for most of his needs. It's very creepy for a man to be desperate to depend on a woman for his livelihood. It's very embarrassing for a man to give up and just let a woman to court him at every circumstance. So, if a man has trouble in the dating scene, that man should step back (and have self-reflection and work on himself emotionally & socially then focus on dating people. That man can focus on his education, his occupation, and other facets of his life before having a long term relationship with a woman. Getting advice is great too). By Timothy

How about women? Should they be active and accomplish their goals directly too? Your reasoning makes no sense. Women are territorial too and they can be more aggressive than men. A lot of the women who took me out and paid for everything appreciated me for my manhood...that manhood by itself has more value than. I had a good laugh reading this last part of your post...when have you ever seen a man give up and just let women court him? That's some bogus s___. Women pursue men when there is something about the man they want and value. There is nothing wrong with that. Look, dude there is only one reason why men pursue women ....TRADITION! But that tradition is based on inequality between the sexes. Men had all the money and power and stature in society so they were the ones who could take women out...not the other way around. Guys who have a problem with women courting men are really just concerned about losing the power and control their money and status as men gave them.. -Desmond Sandiford

My Response: Women too should be active and accomplish their goals directly, yet you know there is epidemic of males falsely collectively blaming women for all issues under the sun. Many women are being assaulted and disrespected in music, TV, and other arenas. Women are treated harsher than men, therefore we men have the responsibility to stand up for the value of real women in the world. I reject the nefarious philosophy for blaming women collectively for dating issues or for the ills of society in general. My reasoning makes perfect sense since the nature of a real man (from a biological, historical, social, behavioral, and cultural standpoints) is to be active, confident, and upright. That is the profound justification for us as males to possess a go getter attitude instead of just waiting for the signs from the heavens to come to us. You can raise your hands up and the signs won't come unless you work. We should chart our destinies. Both genders can be territorial, but males & females aren't identical physically, emotionally, physiologically, or biologically (We are all equal in value, in our inherit or inborn rights, and in intellect. Males and females have identical intelligence). The paying for everything situation is an unique situation. If a woman voluntarily pays you money for dinner, more power to you. Yet, this (in my opinion) ought not to be the case in most instances. A man should at least pay half of their own meal if they are going out with a woman. I don't question your manhood, but I have a disagreement with you. I have seen men give up and allow any type of female go out with him in real life. That isn't bogus, but that's reality. Women pursue men for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, it may sincere and sometimes it is not. It depends on the person since every human is different. The rest of your post outlines a historical argument. The reality is that many men pursued women illegitimately throughout human history as a product of a corrupt, elitist, and retrograde social system. That's true, yet this isn't the case with all men who pursue women. Some men pursue women for companionship without misogyny or the sense of desiring to dominate a woman via an authoritarian fashion. We have testosterone. It is in our nature to invent, to create, and to pursue. I haven't seen a man who disagreed with a woman pursuing a man having insecurities about preserving their own power. A real man pursues, but pursue ethically. If you want a woman to pursue a man, that's your right. Yet, I don't believe that a man should be totally restricted in pursuing a woman. It is obvious that gender inequality should be completely eliminated and some aspects of traditionalism are archaic & discriminatory. Yet, this argument doesn't refute the fact of a man having the right to acquire an aggressive mentality not cowardice, and using strength to directly affect profound change in society. Brother, you have the right to get your Wesley Snipes on (as you admitted to this forum). I have the right to adhere to my perspective (and date some Nubian sisters. These sisters are the original women on Earth). I want to be with someone who is a reflection of myself (in the opposite gender) that knows my pain, my struggles, my culture, my history, and my total identity as a black man living in this world.

-By Timothy (Me)

zZaius wrote: Who really cares what MLK would have thought? He is dead and speculation is the equivalent of mental masturbation. Damn him and those evil, hypocritical, republican control freaks. The next thing you know they will want to ban the murder of infants over 150 weeks and sexual relations with livestock. I like you Zaius. You are a comedian. It is hypocrisy though in my eyes. The reason is that Santorum claims that to promote less federal government as a part of his campaign platform, but he believes in more federal government intervention in our personal and sexual business. Thats a fact. Dr. Kings views are important to comprehend since his words have relevance in our time during the year of 2012. Poverty, war, homelessness, education, the environment, and other issues are relevant in 1968 and in 2012. There is that historical connection between both of those historical eras. Dr. Martin Luther Kings views live on and he desire a lot of credit for his contributions to American society. He deserves a lot of respect beyond your words of him. Many Republican hypocrites want big government in the military & our personal behavior, but refuse to promote effective federal government intervention to help the poor, the elderly, the sick, and the disadvantaged along the journey of lifes roads. Many of them promote anti-civil liberty doctrines & a regressive foreign policy agenda. To his credit, Ron Paul opposes the Patriot Act, SOPA, and other unjust bills or unjust laws. Ron Paul is just wrong on other matters. On abortion, I am not a radical pro-abortion man. People know my views. I do believe that we can find common ground in creating programs to lower abortion rates, to have funds for pregnancy services, and finding ways to promote stronger child care services (after the baby is out of the womb). I am not a moral relativist (I dont agree with bestiality), but the federal government has no right to dictate my moral conscience or my religious creed at all. Thats none of the feds business frankly. -By Timothy

Ron Hubbard wrote: You must be an idiot? The biggest RACISTS today are Blacks. Cry about everything and whine about everything is the mantra of most blacks today. Especially the Black racist losers who vote DEMOCRAT. Blacks are citizens and don't need ANY voting acts rights signed. Lets sleave the past in the past and move on. Blacks get no special rights and due to what happened in the past. Black people have the free speech right to protest against police brutality, discrimination, and other subsequent ills in society. That isn't about human whining. That's reality. Your ancestors protested against colonialism that was inflicted upon them by the British Empire. If your ancestors did these actions centuries ago, we black people have the right to make our grievances known. Also, the acceptable black to you is the bowing down reactionary type of Negro. Sorry, but most black people have a mind of their own and reject Tea Party logic. We accept environmental protection, our civil liberties being enhanced, and an end to any form of oppression against any human being. Also, laws come throughout human history to rectify violations of human liberties. The Voting Rights Act is still necessary, because it protects against violations to those valuable human rights. Extremists still exist that want the rights of black Americans to be eliminated.

No real person advocates special rights. People want the extension of the same HUMAN RIGHTS to all people. For human rights is superior to states rights. The Federal Bill of Rights is superior to states rights. Sometimes, the free market and private interests can't guarantee equal rights among all citizens or all human beings. These equal rights are sometimes fought for and people died in allowing the public to have the real liberties to come about. The past is the past, but even in the present, oppression is around. When oppression is around, we don't say let's ignore it. We don't say, let's minimize it. We say, let's fight it and eliminate all forms of injustices in the world society now. That's our job and black people are more than correct to advocate compassion to the poor, not austerity (and freedom not discrimination or intolerance). I prefer black people to be politically independent personally, but I precisely comprehend why most of my people are Democrats (since the Republicans are so extreme that even Eisenhower would be criticized by the Tea Party reactionaries. Nixon is more liberal than many Republicans today). Peace is also superior to war mongering and unnecessary militaristic aggression against sovereign countries in the world. So, black people should advocate social justice and pristine equality via any legitimate means necessary. -By Timothy

Scapegoat4URLife 1 hour agoin reply to truthseeker2436577 Can't argue with most of that...maybe several things. First off, let me keep it real in saying I'm a conservative so...that's gonna weigh in here. Dr. King's era was an era permeated by a social and fiscal conservatism that is now considered reserved for Republicans. The time for unions and civil rights legislation was right and justified then. Now we have the fall out of too much help...an apathy of education, a sense of entitlement, an inability to live within our means, a rampant enforcement of double standards, and instead of a promotion of true equality our society thought it better to simply hold others down to raise certain groups. The modern Republicans have "knee-jerked" in reaction to what we've become. They recognize it, and instead of taking a moderate approach to righting it...they overreact just as bad as their counterparts. So this issue is more complex if you really want to dissect it. While it may be true that Dr. King wouldn't have voted for Mitt Romney for the hard right position some modern day Republicans take, I can say for certain that the 60's era King WOULD NOT like the extreme leftist mentality that his movement grew into. Now had King not been killed, and instead became part of this left side extremism...well then maybe he'd support Obama. King was a 50's style dude and Rev.....that would almost make him a con just by default. You're looking at him through the liberal eyes of a 2012 era. But I really digressed here...my problem was with Newone's assertion that because of the GUESS that Dr. King wouldn't vote for Romney, there's no way all the documentation and historical fact of him being a Republican are true....which doesn't make sense at all. My Response: I see your point, but I just disagree with you on the ideal that Dr. King would be a strong Republican today (or that Newsone intentionally wanted to promote some illogical presupposition as a means to deceive viewers). The main point of Newsone was that Dr. King may have been registered as a Republican, but he would not agree with the Republican platform today. The details may be quibbled, but the overarching theme remains. Social and fiscal conservatism was strong in the era of the 1950's and the 1960's. That is accurate, but we still need union protections and civil rights protections in our time. The reason is that we have inequality problems, controversial voter ID laws, anti-civil liberty laws like the Patriot Act, and numerous attempts by some to have voter suppression (against minorities, the young, the elderly, the poor, etc.). This social reality merits the same preservation of our civil rights and labor protections that individuals fought for decades ago. This is why activists are legitimately fighting for our voting rights, labor rights, and human rights now. Although, even JFK didn't accept Reaganomics. JFK wanted tax cuts and expenditure spending in 1964. JFK wanted detente with the

Soviets and possible normalization with Cuba. Even Eisenhower helped to form the international highway with government spending. Eisenhower would have been condemned by the Tea Party. The problems you cite are cultural complications which aren't a product of a failure of the truth of some progressive ideals. It's a product of extreme globalization, austerity policies, and a glamorization of evil in Western society, discrimination, economic exploitation, and other socioeconomic problems. The enactment of certain progressive policies weren't meant to advance an abandonment of true equality. They were instituted as a basic means to prevent groups from experiencing discrimination. Certain programs aren't meant to downgrade the power of some, but it was meant to prevent the power of minorities to be further diminished in an imperfect society. Groups in various forms exist even if you disagree based on your conservative philosophical point of view. Therefore, laws protecting groups like in various ethnic groups, genders, etc. are legitimate if they are meant to grant real opportunities and to protect basic human freedoms. I do agree with you that sometimes, some Republicans go overboard in trying to rectify cultural/social issues going on in America. On the other hand, the Dr. King of the 1950's is completely different from Dr. King in 1968. By 1968, he was more radical, he was more progressive (that was his trajectory ideologically), and believed in a guaranteed annual income to help fight poverty. He wanted reparations; Dr. King praised the positive aspects of Black Power, and an end to all forms of war. He believed in supporting the revolutionary movements of the Third World. We don't know exactly what he would say about some of the unique issues that some in the left believe in. The so-called "extreme left" on some issues are better than the neo-cons. One thing is certain that Dr. King would still believe in nonviolence, peace, and he would fight against poverty internationally. -By Timothy (Me)

vonveezil

54 minutes agoin reply to truthseeker2436577

This is fun. I do believe like normal though, you misinterpret my way of thinking and lump it in with whatever dogma you choose to make it. When Sharpton is on everyday on MSDNC, it's all about race with him. One can play the race card too often that when there's real racism it's like the boy who cried wolf. No one believes him anymore. You said" Al Sharpton supports voting rights; he opposes police brutality, and wants freedoms. You can disagree with him on many things, but on those issues, he isnt presenting racism on those topics." Really? If he supports freedom then why does he support such a man as Barack Obama, who is trying very hard to strip freedoms from every American , including blacks. Do you really think that asking someone to prove who they are when voting is suppression? Now please tell me that you and everyone doesn't use some form of ID to bank, buy liquor, cash a check or just about anything one does...you need a picture ID. But for one of the most sacred rights we Americans have , you don't need an ID. To get into an Obama campaign stop , you MUST show 2 forms of ID and have a picture ID. This assumption that voter ID is suppressive is a joke. The only reason the Democrats and Al fight it so hard is because then the illegals won't be able to vote.Which they shouldn't be able to do because they are not citizens. I oppose police brutality also, since I was beaten badly while handcuffed behind my back by 2 officers in an elevator. Rodney King didn't deserve his throttling but Denny didn't deserve his throttling either. You say he wants freedoms. What freedoms are you being deprived of? Is there one thing in this country that a black man or woman can't achieve? No, there isn't. I live in the 21st century and you telling me that I long for the days of slavery is totally wrong. No one here at all has ever been subjected to slavery. Not one of you. I have never owned a slave and never want to own a slave. I'm a proud American, and you all are Americans also. I own my own business and do work on many black peoples homes. Black peoples money is just as green as whites, Asians, or Latinos money. You fight for education but here in Chicago 48% of blacks drop out of school. 440+murders , mostly black on black. Remember this is not a Republican area , it's a total Democrat area. You say you're striving for freedoms that you already have. It's just your attitude and mindset that keeps all of you from becoming whatever you want to become. According to most polls 91% of all blacks are going to vote for Obama and the Democrats. So you telling me, that in '08 when 98% of blacks voted for Obama, that was just a mirage? Not to many blacks jumped ship it would appear. You say you don't worship the Democrats but actions speak louder than words and the overall actions of the black community derail you affirmation. Look up this movie called Runaway Slave. It's

being offered on many cable networks as a ppv. $4.99. Order it and sit down with your family and friends and watch it. Or are you to far gone? Nothing keeps you from being all you can be in this country. Nothing, except your own perceptions of yourselves.

My Response to the Tea Party deceiver: This is fun. You know that the game isn't over yet. Well, it's about to be. I dont misinterpret your words. Your words are rather transparent. You blame black people for rejecting the GOP mostly and then you try to use historical revisionism and slick tactics in trying to force guilt unto black people in trying to make them Tea Party adherents. It won't work because doubling down on trickled down will not massively stop poverty at all. Just because Al Sharpton talks about race on MSNBC, doesnt mean its an example of him expressing racism. Dr. King talked about race in exposing racism. Also, Sharptons words about voter suppression, evils in the political system, and exposing corporate corruption are accurate. You cite no examples of Sharpton playing the race card in 2012 explicitly. Racism and discrimination are ever real in society and you just deny it. You cite no evidence on how Sharpton doesnt support voting rights, real freedoms, and ending police brutality. I didnt say that the man is perfect. Supporting Barack Obama is his right. I believe the President is right on some issues and dead wrong on others. I dont just dont have a hatred of the man. Folks who hate the man have immorally denied his citizenship, called him lazy, questioned his intellect, and slandered his name (and his family like the coward Glen Beck. Beck had to apologize for disrespecting the President's daughter). Some GOP people even disrespected the beautiful, intelligent Sister First Lady Michelle Obama. This isn't representative of all GOP members or all Tea Party individuals though. The anti-voter ID laws are bigger than possessing an ID, which you already know. These anti-human rights laws decrease the days in how people can achieve early voting, many people have been falsely eliminated from voting rolls, and some of these laws have been struck down by courts all across America. The Voter ID laws force people to have a government issued photo ID when other documents are sufficient in order for folks to vote. Studies prove that some of these laws will negatively affect the young and the poor. Millions of U.S. citizens don't have a government issued photo ID in the realm of 11% of all U.S. citizens. Many pro-Republican groups put up inaccurate billboards about voting laws as well. Black people have victories in Ohio and other places too on this issue. Studies prove that voter fraud presently is very minuscule which doesnt make it necessary for these oppressive laws to exist in the first place. Also, not one reasonable person wants non-U.S. citizen human beings to vote in American elections. Where did you get that perception from? These people who are non-U.S. citizens are still human beings and they should be afforded equal respect. Why do you cite Rodney King and Denny? No one is talking about both men here. Most black people dont agree with what happened to both of them. Your implication that some blacks massively lack empathy of the suffering of nonblacks is telling. People are talking about Dr. King. 2 wrong dont make a right, but the white supremacist system exists (as exposed by crammasters and other qualified black scholars). You reactionaries ignore white supremacy and racism since you want to live in your world of trying to make black people docile & submissive under your way of thinking when dealing with white people. The Patriot Act and other unjust laws deprive our freedoms. The TSA abusive acts deprive our freedoms. The evil Drug War policies and the stop and frisk situation deprive our freedoms as well. Documented voter suppression in recent times deprives our human freedoms. We have the right to promote our civil liberties period. Also, slavery is still here in the world despite it being banned overtly & legally in America. Native Americans living today didnt experience the colonists oppressing them, but they received compensation in recent years. The legacy of racism still exists in our time and black people have the right to oppose oppression (whether it's from police brutality to discrimination). Just because you dont own a slave doesnt make it a justification for you to refuse to expose racism or ignore white supremacy. Injustices still reign in society like a 6 year old sister being killed by a crooked police officer in Detroit. Also, you cite the imperfections in other cities as a means to blame blacks collectively, which is ignorance. These problems are caused by socioeconomic problems, laissez faire economic problems (these economic policies increased the debt during the Bush years. What people in Chicago need isn't your way of privatization of all resources, but a holistic approach of both public

and private services in making reforms in the city. You have to spend money in investments in fighting for change, not just individual initiatives), the Drug War, etc. not by the essence of black humanity. There are those in Chicago fighting for reforms and you discount or minimize their efforts. Also, many mostly Republican areas in the Deep South have poverty, record divorces, educational problems, meth addiction, and other problems. My people dont make up most of the pedophiles, serial killers, corporate criminals, and imperialists in America. Guess which people? Also, many black people have made great accomplishments in life. Yet, they made it by working collectively too. You never made it on your own solitary. You needed assistance sometimes collectively. The power of the individual and the power of the collective are parts of the black African cultural tradition. My attitude has nothing to do with all evils in the world. Also, most black people voted for President Barack Obama because John McCain was seen as more reactionary. McCain talked about possibly bombing Iran. Most young people voted for the President in 2008 and most people voting for Republicans are mostly white people (that doesn't mean that all white people are racist or all black people are racist for mostly voting for the President). Many black people in Maryland voted for more non-black Democratic candidates before (and in places across America). I dont worship Democrats and to assume otherwise is deception on your part. I cite the errors of the Democratic Dixiecrats in this very forum. I am an Independent politically. My actions of believing in truth, opposing globalization, and rejecting austerity are clear. I refuted the Runaway Slave documentary many months ago in print. Your Tea Party rhetoric (and the Tea Party is funded by the Koch Brothers and other corporate interests) is fantasy since war mongering, massive austerity cuts, scapegoating, promoting the interests of the 1 percent, and xenophobia arent the essence of the Dream. The Dream is about us showing respect for humanity of every background and not to scapegoat black people collectively for every social ill in America. Runaway Slave won't expose how the New Deal decreased poverty, how the poverty rate was cut massively from 1945-1975 via progressive action, or how Social Security is a very successful program. It won't expose NSM 200 and it won't expose how Dr. King wanted a guaranteed annual income for all Americans. Your denial of white supremacy and the oppression against human beings in society is telling. I have a great perception of myself and my black people. I do believe that my people can achieve great things, but I also believe in exposing white supremacy at the same time. I believe in the Dream and I believe in justice. You can't have peace without justice. Checkmate. By Timothy

On the Flat Tax: The Flat Tax has been exposed by numerous folks indeed. The flat tax is loved by many conservatives and even some libertarians. Its supported by Rick Perry, Herman Cain (as popularized with his 999 plan), former House majority leader Dick Armey, etc. Armey is the chairman of the Freedom Works group. Its the Tea Party funded Koch Brothers supported group. Perry and Cantor yell against the stimulus, but use money from the stimulus to fund their projects in a form of hypocrisy. The flat tax raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that Cain's plan (the only one out there so far) would lower the after-tax incomes of poor households (incomes below $30,000) by 16 to 20 percent, while increasing the incomes of wealthier households (incomes above $200,000) by 5 to 22 percent, on average. Under Cain's plan, fully 95 percent of households with more than $1 million in income would get an average tax cut of $487,300. And capital gains (a major source of income for the very rich) would be tax free. Usually, the flat tax plans lead into the rich benefiting. The current tax code is slightly progressive since the rich pay a slightly higher rate. Yet, the poor pay a larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes. Flat taxes dont eliminate popular deductions. A flat tax means a professional whose making, say, $380,000 a year pays the same

income-tax rate as a plutocrat pulling in $2 billion or $20 billion. Our current flat tax at the top is treating the nation's professional class exactly the same as it treats super-rich plutocrats. The top 1 percent is now raking in over 20 percent of the nation's total income and owns over 35 percent of the nation's wealth. Simple fairness requires three things: More tax brackets at the top, higher rates in each bracket, and the treatment of all sources of income (capital gains included) exactly the same. Also, people on minimum wage in many cases cant afford many basic necessities of life (Im not even talking about health insurance).

-By Timothy